Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MOTIONS FOR UNOPPOSED RETURNS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Return ordered,
for Session 1989–90 of—

(1) the total number of Questions to Ministers or other Members which stood on the Order Paper, distinguishing those set down for oral, written priority and written answer

respectively, the number of days upon which replies to Questions for oral answers were given in the House; and the total number of Questions for oral answer to which such answers were given in the House;
(2) the total number of Notices of Motions given for an early day;
(3) the number of Members ordered to withdraw from the House under Standing Order No. 42 (Disorderly conduct), showing separately the orders given in the House and those given in Committee; and the Members suspended from the service of the House under Standing Order No. 43 (Order in debate) or otherwise, distinguishing whether the offence was committed in the House or in Committee, the period of such suspension, the number of occasions on which more than one Member was so suspended having jointly disregarded the authority of the Chair, and the number of occasions on which the attention of the House was called to the need for recourse to force to compel obedience to Mr. Speaker's direction; and
(4) the number of public petitions presented to the House distinguishing separately those brought to the Table at the times specified by Standing Order No.133 (No debate on presentation of petition).—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

CLOSURE AND ALLOCATION OF TIME

Return ordered,
for Session 1989–90 respecting—
(A) applications of Standing Order No. 35 (Closure of debate) during Session 1989–90:
(1) in the House and in Committee of the whole House, under the following heads:

1
2
3
4
5
6


Date when Closure claimed, and by whom
Question before House or Committee when claimed
Whether in House or Committee
Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair
Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion
Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

and

(2) in the Standing Committees under the following heads:

1
2
3
4
5


Date when Closure claimed, and by whom
Question before Committee when claimed
Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair
Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion
Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

and

(B) applications of Standing Order No. 28 (Powers of Chair to propose question) during Session 1989–90:

(1) in the House and in Committee of the whole House, under the following heads:

1
2
3
4
5


Date when Closure claimed, and by whom
Whether in House or Committee
Whether claimed in respect of Motion or Amendment
Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair
Result of Motion, and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

and

(2) in the Standing Committees under the following heads:

1
2
3
4


Date when Closure claimed, and by whom
Whether claimed in respect of Motion or Amendment
Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair
Result of Motion, and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

and

(C) the number of Bills in respect of which allocation of time orders (distinguishing where appropriate orders supplementary to a previous order) were made under Standing Order No. 81 (Allocation of time to Bills), showing in respect of each Bill—

(i) the number of sittings allotted to the consideration of the Bill in Standing Committee by any report of a Business Sub-Committee under Standing Order No. 103 (Business sub-committees) agreed to by the Standing Committee, and the number of sittings of the Standing Committee pursuant thereto; and
(ii) the number of days or portions of days allotted by the allocation of time order and any supplementary order to the consideration of the Bill at any stage in the House or in committee, together with the number of days upon which proceedings were so taken in the House or in committee.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Return ordered,
or Session 1989–90 of the number of Instruments considered by the Joint Committee and the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments respectively pursuant to their orders of

reference, showing in each case the numbers of Instruments subject to the different forms of parliamentary procedure and of those within the Committees' orders of reference for which no parliamentary procedure is prescribed by statute; setting out the grounds on which Instruments may be drawn to the special attention of the House under Standing Order No. 124


(Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)) and specifying the umber of Instruments so reported under each of these grounds; and of the numbers of Instruments considered by a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c., and by the House respectively, showing the number where the Question on the proceedings relating thereto was put forthwith under Standing Order No. 101(5).—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS

Return ordered,
for Session 1989–90 of

(1) The Number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, Bills for the confirmation of Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into this House, and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed, specifying also the dates of the House's consideration of the several stages of such Bills;
(2) All Private Bills, Hybrid Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which were reported on by Committees on Opposed Bills or by Committees nominated by the House or partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills of which the Preambles were reported to have been proved; the Bills of which the Preambles were reported to have been not proved; and in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Order ought or ought not to be confirmed;
(3) All Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which were referred by the Committee of Selection to the Committee on Unopposed Bills, together with the names of the Members who served on the Committee; the number of days on which the Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended;
(4) The number of Bills to confirm Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, distinguishing those proceeded with under section 7 and under section 9 respectively; specifying, in the case of Bills proceeded with under section 9 against which petitions were deposited, whether a motion was made to refer the Bill to a joint committee, and if so whether such motion was agreed to, withdrawn, negatived or otherwise disposed of; and stating for each joint committee to which a Bill was referred the names of the Members of this House nominated thereto, the first and last day of the committee's sitting, the number of days on which each joint committee sat for the consideration of the Bill referred to it, the number of days on which each Member of the committee served, and whether the committee reported that the order ought or ought not to be confirmed;
(5) The number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, Bills for the confirmation of Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which were referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the committee; and
(6) The membership, work costs and staff of the Court of Referees and the Standing Orders Committee.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

PUBLIC BILLS

Return ordered,
for Session 1989–90 of the number of Public Bills (other than Bills to confirm Provisional Orders and Bills to confirm Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, showing: (1) the number which received the Royal Assent, and (2) the number which did not receive the Royal Assent, indicating those which were introduced into but not passed by this House, those passed by this House but not by the House of Lords, those passed by the House of Lords but not by this House, those passed by both Houses but Amendments not agreed to; and distinguishing the stages at

which such Bills were dropped, postponed or rejected in either House of Parliament, or the stages which such Bills had reached by the time of Prorogation.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Return ordered,
for Session 1989–90 of the days on which the House sat; stating for each day the day of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of the adjournment; the total numbers of hours occupied in the sittings of the House; and the average time; showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day and the number of hours after the time appointed for the interruption of business; and specifying, for each principal type of business before the House, how much time was spent thereon, distinguishing from the total the time spent after the hour appointed for the interruption of business.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

SPECIAL PROCEDURE ORDERS

Return ordered,
for Session 1989–90 of

(1) The number of Special Procedure Orders presented, the number withdrawn; the number annulled; the number against which Petitions or copies of Petitions were deposited; the number of Petitions of General Objection and for Amendment respectively considered by the Chairmen; the number of such petitions certified by the Chairmen as proper to be received and the number certified by them as being Petitions of General Objection and for Amendment respectively; the number referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses; the number reported with Amendments by a Joint Committee, and the number in relation to which a Joint Committee reported that the Order be not approved and be amended respectively; and the number of Bills introduced for the confirmation of Special Procedure Orders: and
(2) Special Procedure Orders which were referred to a joint Committee, together with the names of the Commons Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each committee sat; and the number of days on which each such Member attended.—[The First Deputy chairman of Ways and Means.]

STANDING COMMITTEES

Return ordered,
for Session 1989–90 of

(1) the total number and the names of all Members (including and distinguishing Chairmen) who have been appointed to serve on one or more of the Standing Committees showing, with regard to each of such Members, the number of sittings to which he was summoned and at which he was present;
(2) the number of Bills, Estimates, Matters and other items referred to Standing Committees pursuant to Standing Order No. 102 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.), or Standing Order No. 103 (Standing Committees on European Community Documents) considered by all and by each of the Standing Committees, the number of sittings of each Committee and the titles of all Bills, Estimates, Matters and other items as above considered by a Committee, distinguishing where a Bill was a Government Bill or was brought from the House of Lords, and showing in the case of each Bill, Estimate, Matter and other item, the particular Committee by which it was considered, the number of sittings at which it was considered (including, in the case of the Scottish Grand Committee, the number of Meetings held in Edinburgh, pursuant to a motion made under Standing Order No. 95(3) (Scottish Grand Committee)) and the number of Members present at each of those sittings; and
(3) the membership, work costs and staff of the Chairmen's Panel.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

SELECT COMMITTEES

Return ordered,
for Session 1989–90 of statistics relating to the membership, work costs and staff of Select Committees (other than the Standing Orders Committee).—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Free Television Licences

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Government policy towards the provision of free television licences for pensioners.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): We have no plans to introduce free licences for pensioners or to extend the present concessionary arrangements.

Mr. Winnick: Although the licence fee is excellent value and far better than any alternative scheme, is the Minister aware of the strong feeling of many pensioners that they should not have to pay the full sum? Is he also aware that two thirds of pensioner households are on low incomes? Why do the Government give every concession to the rich, but deny poor pensioners the concession for which Labour Members ask? Is it any wonder that the Government are so detested?

Mr. Lloyd: I wonder whether the hon. Member would think it fair, when many pensioners are well off and many non-pensioners have low incomes, for £435 million which would otherwise go to the BBC to be spent in that way, with the result that low-income families would have to pay 50 per cent. more for their licences, up to £107. Is that fair?

Dame Jill Knight: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the suggestion of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) were followed, hundreds of thousands of extremely wealthy people over the ages of 60 and 65 would get handouts from the taxpayer and that if any Government were to subsidise pleasure we should be on a slippery slope?

Mr. Lloyd: I agree with my hon. Friend and so, I believe, does the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). I regret that the hon. Gentleman is not in his place. He made it clear in a letter to The Guardian that there was no question of exempting pensioners who were able to pay. My hon. Friend is right to say that if money is available it should be used for projects which benefit the lower paid and are targeted on them. That is why, in October last, we increased the pensioner addition to income support by £200 million.

Mr. Maginnis: Is the Secretary of State aware that, more than the question of free television licences, it is the nature of programmes which gives offence to pensioners, and that this problem should be tackled? Is he aware that deep offence was caused on 1 November, during a by-election in Dungannon district council, when on voting day the BBC transmitted a programme which highlighted the fact that the previous member for the seat had been shot by security forces when on IRA activity, and——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his supplementary question to television licences for pensioners.

Mr. Maginnis: I am talking about the offence given to pensioners and the deep upset caused to them by news items such as these.

Mr. Lloyd: I think that that supplementary falls very much on the edge of the issue raised by the question. I understand the feelings expressed by the hon. Member, but they are matters not for me but for the Broadcasting Complaints Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council, which have been set up to look at issues of that kind.

Mr. Holt: When my constituent Mrs. Littlefair received notification that, along with all her neighbours, she had been given a concessionary licence, she was naturally delighted. However, she received a further letter saying that, because of the inefficiences of Middlesbrough council, the bureaucratic bungling in the Home Office and the intransigence of the advice given by my hon. Friend, her concessionary licence was taken away, as were those of her three immediate neighbours, but not those of any of the other people. I have now been asked by the chief executive of Middlesbrough to bring in the ombudsman to see whether he will investigate the way in which Middlesbrough council has failed in its duty and the Home Office has been so intransigent.

Mr. Lloyd: I have much sympathy for my hon. Friend's constitutent, but the law gives no opportunity for Ministers to grant a concessionary licence when the individual concerned does not fall within the rules. The individual must be in a property which falls within the rules or have had a concessionary licence prior to the relevant date. If the individual did not have one but understood from Middlesbrough council that he or she would have one, that one was in force or that one was applied for, the remedy surely lies with the council. That, however, is a matter for my hon. Friend to pursue.

Mr. Corbett: Do not the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) and other comments on this issue demonstrate that the concessionary licence scheme is arbitrary and unfair as between pensioner neighbours?

Mr. Ashby: Abolish the concession.

Mr. Corbett: Yes. The Government did not have the bottle to do that, but I agree that that is what they wanted to do.
Is the Minister aware that when a flat in a block occupied by pensioners is taken by a person under pensionable age, all the other pensioner residents lose the concession? Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to put that right?

Mr. Lloyd: The concession is carefully drawn to ensure that pensioners living in the equivalent of residential care, in warden-controlled or sheltered accommodation, may have the concession. As the rule has to be clear and understandable at law, and not challenged at law, the detail must be set out clearly. There can be no concessions for those who fall outside the rule. It is regrettable that that is so, but it is necessary for local authorities to organise themselves so that their tenants can take advantage of the scheme and to ensure that they do not let accommodation of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman referred to people not of pensionable age. That is the remedy and the solution.

Radio Frequencies

Mr. Robert Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends next to meet the chairman of the BBC to discuss the allocation of radio frequencies; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: My right hon. and learned Friend meets the chairman of the BBC from time to time to discuss a wide variety of broadcasting matters.

Mr. Hicks: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the adverse effect that the introduction of the new frequency arrangements could have on sports coverage, especially the ball-by-ball cricket test match commentary? Does he agree that those continuous commentaries, which have an international as well as a national audience, are an essential part of our lives and should be maintained even when there are competing sporting events on the same day? It is important that all of us should have the opportunity to know who is batting, how many runs have been scored or who has taken most wickets.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend raises a matter of great national importance. The changes in the airwaves are to give many more people a much wider range of choice. I understand that most sporting events will be uninterrupted on the new Radio 5. The only likely clashes will be in June when Wimbledon and the test match come at the same time. It is entirely for the BBC to decide how to manage, bearing in mind what it considers audience demand to be. I understand that it intends to broadcast a ball-by-ball commentary of the test match and to intersperse within it occasional reports on other sporting events.

Mr. Wigley: In any such discussions, will the Minister take up the issue of wavelengths and reception for both radio and television in parts of Wales, as people in Wales are having considerable difficulty receiving programmes which originate from Wales? Will the hon. Gentleman consider the odd situation in which Kenny Dalglish can watch soccer matches from Wales in Liverpool while large sections of the population in Clwyd cannot receive those programmes?

Mr. Lloyd: I am aware that there are difficulties, especially in Wales, as are the BBC and the broadcasting authorities. There is a programme to improve FM transmission with the move to the new wavelengths for the BBC. The television authorities are aware of the difficulties in certain places, but I believe that broadcasting standards and reception are improving and are designed to improve markedly in the coming years until the old wavelengths are phased out.

Mr. Hague: When my hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the BBC to discuss radio frequencies, will he remind him of the continuing frustration of people in areas such as Swaledale and North Yorkshire that they cannot receive FM broadcasts and thus cannot listen to Radio 2? Will he urge the chairman to complete the construction of more repeater stations so that the whole nation can listen to FM broadcasts?

Mr. Lloyd: I note what my hon. Friend says. No doubt those responsible in the BBC and other broadcasting authorities will read our exchanges. As I said to the hon.

Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), the BBC is mindful of the speed with which it needs to improve FM transmission in particular.

Broadcasting Act

Mr. Clelland: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the implications for the provisions of the Broadcasting Act of the merger of BSB and Sky Television.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): Under the Broadcasting Act 1990, the ownership provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1981 apply to the existing DBS contractor until 1993, and the IBA is accordingly considering whether the merged company is in conformity with the 1981 Act. I understand that the Office of Fair Trading is currently considering whether the merger falls within the scope of the merger provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973.

Mr. Clelland: Is the Secretary of State aware that while the Broadcasting Act 1990, which placed great emphasis on choice, gathers dust on the shelf, thousands of families like mine around the country who chose not to have Sky but to wait for the better quality and technologically superior BSB have had choice effectively removed from them without being consulted or having their wishes considered? What consultation will the right hon. and learned Gentleman undertake to ensure that the rights of such people are protected and that manufacturers, retailers and customers who do not wish to avail themselves of the offer that they cannot refuse from Sky are properly and fully compensated?

Mr. Waddington: The Act is designed to open up new opportunities. It is for entrepreneurs to take up those opportunities and for viewers to decide whether they deserve to succeed. It is no part of the Government's duty to prop up and subsidise the entrepreneurs.

Mr. Maclennan: What action would the Secretary of State propose to encourage diversification by Sky or BSkyB when it reaches a dominant position in the marketplace?

Mr. Waddington: It is not a matter for the Government, but I mentioned earlier that one of the consequences of what happened a week or so ago is that important decisions must be taken by the IBA and the Office of Fair Trading.

Mr. Hattersley: Bearing in mind the BSB-Sky merger and this week's announcement that Mr. Rupert Murdoch seems likely to acquire an interest in yet another newspaper, what are the Government's objections to and arguments against a general reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission asking it to inquire into the concentration of newspaper and media ownership?

Mr. Waddington: That goes far wide of the question and of my responsibilities. We are dealing today with the consequences of what happened a week or so ago.

Sunday Trading

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received regarding the application of the law on Sunday


trading; and what is the latest figure he has for the number of actions instituted this year against stores contravening the Shops Act 1950.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): Since I answered a similar question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on 1 November, five written representations broadly in favour of Sunday trading and three against have been received. Figures for the number of prosecutions instituted this year are not yet available.

Mr. Field: Is my hon. Friend aware that most people find the Sunday trading laws rather more confusing than one of Dr. Habgood's sermons? Is it not possible for the Government to consider giving the power to borough and district councils to take decisions about whether to allow Sunday trading so that decisions are taken at a local level, giving more power to the people and less to the prophets and the politicians?

Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend will know that local authorities have the opportunity to bring prosecutions in such matters. It would not be right for us to go further at present.

Mr. Ray Powell: Is the Minister aware of the law? If she is aware of it and believes, as the Prime Minister has said on many occasions, that it should be enforced, will she ensure that those who attempt to enforce the law are not pressurised by companies? I have a full list of companies that have gone to court to appeal against local authority decisions to impose the Sunday trading laws. It is about time the Minister sent a circular letter to all local authorities defining their responsibilities and, indeed, the legal position under the Sunday trading laws.

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman knows that there is no need for a circular letter. The law is perfectly clear. It is within the remit of local authorities to undertake to prosecute in such cases if that is what they wish to do.

Mr. Stanbrook: Is my hon. Friend aware that if the Government were to adopt as a sensible compromise the REST—recreation, emergencies, social gatherings and travel—proposals of the Keep Sunday Special campaign, there would be no difficulty in getting that reform through the House?

Mrs. Rumbold: As my hon. Friend knows, it is difficult at present to see how progress can be made because so many people hold divergent views on this matter. If there were any reasonable proposals that could command the support of a majority of the House and of Parliament it would, of course, be possible for us to consider legislation.

Mr. Randall: Is the Minister aware that the Conservative Government are encouraging law breaking because of their failure to reform the Shops Act 1950? That is happening despite the lecture on law breaking that the House received from the Home Secretary on Monday during the debate on the Queen's Speech. Is the Minister also aware that the Government's procrastination is resulting in allegedly threatening letters being sent to elected members of Macclesfield borough council by B and Q plc of the Kingfisher group, which is continuing to trade illegally? I notice that this matter is also causing concern to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), whom

I see in his place. The Minister is responsible for this mess. When is she going to reform that Act? The House wants to know.

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. He knows perfectly well that it is not long since the House had a perfectly good opportunity to reform the legislation on Sunday trading, but hon. Members declined to do so. The hon. Gentleman's party participated fully in that debate. If the Opposition wish to have reform, it is in their interests to ensure that reasonable proposals come before the House so that all parties can agree on the way in which legislation should be framed.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend ensure that in this country the law of this country is upheld? If undue pressure and threats are brought to bear by B and Q on officers and councillors of the borough of Macclesfield, will she ensure that the Government are prepared to support the council and to ensure that a company is not allowed, because of its wealth, to bring such undue, unfortunate and undemocratic pressure to bear upon a duly elected council?

Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is aware that the place for such disputes is undoubtedly and indisputably in the courts. It is important that my hon. Friend should remember that it is not possible for Ministers to do more than that which falls within the scope of their responsibilities, which is to uphold the rights of local authorities to pursue such matters in the courts.

Several hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Exceptionally, and to ensure balance, I call Mr. Patrick Duffy.

Mr. Duffy: I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister noticed the strength of the Keep Sunday Special movement in Germany? What consideration is she giving to the known intentions of some of its promoters in Germany to campaign for wider acceptance within the European Community?

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that Sunday trading is a matter for this Parliament and that we must discuss their wishes with the people of this country. It is because there is a discrepancy among the different groups that we have so far been unable to put forward any proposals that could command the support of the majority of the people of this country and enable Parliament to pass an Act.

Prison Population

Mr. Yeo: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current level of the prison population.

Mr. Waddington: This morning, there were 44,540 prisoners held in prison service establishments in England and Wales. In addition, a further 970 were held in police cells.

Mr. Yeo: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that those figures are already encouragingly below the trends forecast some years ago? Will he ensure that the Government's twin-track approach to sentencing, which


involves longer sentencing of violent offenders but greater use of non-custodial penalties for those who commit less serious offences, is fully implemented?

Mr. Waddington: I will certainly do the last. As my hon. Friend knows, that is the theme of the proposals to be embodied in the Criminal Justice Bill which we shall be debating before long. My hon. Friend is right to say that much encouragement can be taken from recent figures, which show a fall of 2,962 prisoners by comparison with one year ago and a fall of more than 5,000 compared with two years ago.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the Home Secretary agree that in view of the number of suicides and other problems associated with prisoners suffering from mental deficiency, it is time to give prison medical services extra funding pro tern, so as to ensure early diagnosis of prisoners at risk?

Mr. Waddington: I am not sure that it is just a question of extra funding, but the hon. Gentleman is right in thinking that we have a serious problem on our hands. We asked the chief inspector of prisons, Judge Tumim, to investigate and I expect to receive his report before long. Meanwhile, a number of important measures have been taken throughout the prison estate for dealing with that very real problem.

Mr. Lawrence: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that there has been a reduction not just in the total prison population but in overcrowding within prisons and, in particular, a substantial fall in the past year in the number of three-to-a-cell prisoners?

Mr. Waddington: A combination of our prison building programme and the important reforms embodied in the Criminal Justice Act 1982 and 1988 resulted in fewer young offenders being sent to prison or to young offenders institutions. That has changed the scene radically. The new criminal justice legislation will extend to the whole age range the kind of measures that have proved so successful in respect of young offenders.

Mr. Battle: In the light of Judge Tumim's report on Armley prison in my constituency, does the Home Secretary accept that it is universally agreed that Armley is a totally inappropriate place to send young, unconvicted remand prisoners? What plans does the Home Office have to provide an alternative and by what date does the Home Secretary envisage that Armley prison's remand wing will be closed down?

Mr. Waddington: Our response to Judge Tumim's report was made public on 6 November and it is available in the Library. I indicated that action had already been taken to improve conditions within Armley, in terms of staffing and the regime. Harking back to an earlier question, the recommendations on suicide prevention have already been adopted. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we must take other measures, particularly in getting young offenders out of Armley. We intend before long to move adult offenders into another prison, so in due course there will be more scope for providing better accommodation for young remand prisoners in Yorkshire.

Mr. Charles Wardle: In his consideration of the prison population and the prison building programme, will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that Northeye

prison in my constituency is scheduled for closure? Will the site be sold when that happens, or will it be retained indefinitely by the prison service?

Mr. Waddington: I cannot give my hon. Friend an off-the-cuff answer, but I will write to him. He will appreciate that it was important to undertake the review of the prison estate that I reported to the House in the summer because we must make the best possible use of the accommodation available within the prison estate.

Security Service Tribunal

Mr. Archer: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases are currently under review by the Security Service Tribunal; and how many of them relate to matters that took place prior to December 1989.

Mr. Waddington: The Security Service Act 1989 established the Security Service Tribunal as an independent body and it is not for me to make available details of its work. The tribunal is precluded by the Act from considering matters that took place before the implementation of the Act on 18 December 1989.

Mr. Archer: Is it a closely guarded secret whether the tribunal is declining jurisdiction in cases where the inquiry began before it was established? If it is, will the Home Secretary confirm that that is not what the Act says, and it would surprise hon. Members who voted for it?

Mr. Waddington: I have made absolutely plain what the Act says. There is not the slightest doubt that the tribunal is precluded by the Act from considering matters that took place before its implementation. It is not for me to give details of the tribunal's work. It was established by Parliament as an independent body—[Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen will wait for a moment.
The Security Service Commissioner may choose to cover the work of the tribunal in his report.

Squatters

Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department has any plans to bring forward proposals to tighten the law on squatters.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 19 June, we are considering the criminal law on squatting as it affects unoccupied residential property. This is a difficult and complex area in which the criminal law has traditionally not played a major role in England and Wales. But we recognise that there is a case for strengthening the law and I hope to announce the Government's intentions in due course.

Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. Friend accept that a number of my constituents who have suffered because of the reprehensible activities of squatters will welcome the answer that he has given me today? Many of my constituents cannot understand why—despite the complexities of this aspect of law—the law cannot be brought into line with that governing a prime residence. Can the Minister advise me when he might be able to make an announcement on this matter?

Mr. Patten: I know of my hon. Friend's strong feelings on behalf of his constituents, and especially the occupant and owner of The Warren, near Chelmsford. I understand the distress that his constituents went through. My hon. Friend is right. There are serious issues to be considered here and that is exactly what my right hon. and learned Friend and I are doing at the moment. We hope to make an announcement as soon as possible.

Mr. Haynes: Can I make a suggestion to the Minister? He should have a word with the Secretary of State for the Home Department over these problems, that is squatters. Could I suggest that he tell the Secretary of State—[HON. MEMBERS: "No. Ask a question".] I have already asked a question. When the Secretary of State sits round that table at No. 10 drinking tea, doing nothing else, only doing as he is told by that lady in the chair, he might overcome the problem if he told her to change her policy on housing. So get stuck in and do something about it.

Mr. Patten: It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is a little overexcited. It might be advisable, Mr. Speaker—if I may make a suggestion—if you put the kind ladies and gentlemen in white coats on watch as they may need to take him away a bit later.

Mr. Haynes: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that was meant in a kindly way.

Mr. Haynes: No it was not. On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if I had said that to the Minister you would have thrown me out of the place. It is time that you dealt with him. I am not satisfied. Deal with him. I will whitecoat him outside.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I still think it was friendly and if the hon. Member had said it I should have thought it was friendly, too.

Mr. John Marshall: When my hon. Friend examines the law on squatters, will he also consider the law on gipsies, who frequently behave anti-socially, are often parasites on society and frequently tax dodgers?

Mr. Patten: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. My hon. Friend's constituents have some protection under section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986, which is a useful Act. It might be of use in respect of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes).

Police Funding, Staffordshire

Mrs. Heal: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he is next to meet the chief constable of Staffordshire to discuss police funding.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to meet the chief constable, but Home Office Ministers are in regular contact with chief officers of police.

Mrs. Heal: In view of the hopelessly inadequate allocation of funds to the Staffordshire police authority for 1990–91, can the Home Secretary assure us that the level of capital grant will be sufficient to meet the known operational requirements of the police authorities for vehicles and other equipment in the coming year?

Mr. Lloyd: I am sure that the hon. Lady knows that the capital expenditure on vehicles, plant and equipment was open ended. In 1988–89 it was approximately £150 million. In 1989–90 it leapt to £238 million. Therefore, we had to cap central Government's contribution. That amounted to £174 million. There was, therefore, an increase that year, compared with the 1988–89 allocation. Next year, the figure will rise to £220 million. That is a substantial increase. It will be made available for the capital expenditure to which the hon. Lady referred. There will, therefore, again be more money. Moreover, we are consulting the police authorities about a mechanism to ensure that that money is shared out as fairly as possible.

Mr. Cormack: Is my hon. Friend aware that earlier this year our right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State received a deputation of county council representatives and Members of Parliament from all parts of the House? Is he also aware that the chief constable was a member of that deputation, that a very powerful case was made and that we are eagerly awaiting a good and positive reply?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, I know that such a meeting took place and that my right hon. and noble Friend took close note of what was said. I hope that my hon. Friend has also taken note of what I have said: we are seeking, with the police authorities, to devise a mechanism to ensure that the money is distributed as fairly as possible and that it goes where it is most needed.

Mr. Sheerman: The way in which the Government have played around with the current and capital expenditure of county authorities such as Staffordshire means that the police have been hamstrung when planning to meet the rising level of crime that faces them, day in, day out, under the Thatcher Government. Is not it about time that the Government gave certainty to the financial structure? That is what the police need if they are to fight crime effectively.

Mr. Lloyd: That is exactly what we have done. We have changed an open-ended situation that was not used well by some local authorities and police authorities, to the disadvantage of others. We have set a cap on it which allows for a sensible increase each year.

Bicycles

Mr. Bowls: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to enforce the law requiring bicycles to be adequately lit when being ridden on public highways during the hours of darkness.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: Responsibility for the enforcement of road traffic law rests with individual chief officers of police.

Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that what we must encourage is responsible cycling? Is he aware of the increasing public concern about the danger to pedestrians, motorists and cyclists due to the practice of cycling at night without lights? Will he draw the problem to the attention of the police, particularly the Metropolitan police?

Mr. Lloyd: I shall certainly draw this exchange to the attention of the Metropolitan police. As my hon. Friend said, it is an important matter, not least because there has been a considerable increase in the number of cyclist accidents during the last year. Only 20 per cent. of those accidents, however, occurred at night.

Mr. Cryer: Is not it true, however, that more danger is caused to cyclists by badly maintained roads arid the failure of central Government to give enough money to local authorities to provide cycle ways? Is not it true that cyclists would be much better served if the Government were less parsimonious towards local authorities and provided them with adequate funds?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is trying to construct an extraordinarily unconvincing explanation for people cycling in unsafe circumstances and unsafe conditions with their lights off. The hon. Gentleman's comments seem to have no relevance to the question that I was posed.

Mrs. Peacock: Is my hon. Friend aware that many cyclists who are involved in accidents after dark not only cannot be seen but cannot hear the traffic because they are riding with headphones on, playing loud music? Does my hon. Friend intend to take any action on that matter?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend has made a useful point. As I said earlier, I shall draw these matters to the attention of the police. My hon. Friend underlines the fact that cyclists can do a great deal more to make their cycling safer.

Policing, Cumbria

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from Cumbria on the question of policing.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: My right hon. and learned Friend has received no representations from the Cumbria 'police authority since March 1989. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State visited Cumbria police in May 1990.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: In the light of the high incidence of petty crime and burglary in the county, may I make a special plea on behalf of hundreds of thousands of Cumbrians that the Government look most sympathetically on any request for additional policing resources for the county? Things really are quite bad.

Mr. Lloyd: Of course, the hon. Gentleman can be sure that we will look carefully at any such request. As he knows, extra police officers will be announced towards the end of the year. I commend the Cumbrian police authority for the way in which it has used the civilianisation programme. It has used the programme sensibly and better than many other authorities in the country. The increase in the crime rate in Cumbria, particularly for the crimes mentioned by the hon. Gentleman is lower than the national increase.

Mr. Jopling: Is my hon. Friend aware that if he is looking for examples throughout the country of good relations between the police and the public, he could do no better than offer Cumbria as such an example?

Mr. Lloyd: Cumbria is a very good example and I have already mentioned some of its successes in my reply to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).

Mr. Martlew: Will the Minister have urgent talks with the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is under the impression that Cumbria is spending too much on its police? He said that under the standard spending assessment, £1·6 million too much is being spent. It is obvious to the people of Cumbria that that is not the case.
Is not it a fact that, unless the county council cuts its police budget, we are likely to be capped this year by the Government?

Mr. Lloyd: The council must make its own judgment in terms of its obligations under the law and the arrangements for the community charge that it receives.

Petty Criminals

Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are being taken to ensure that petty criminals receive community-based sentences rather than imprisonment.

Mr. John Patten: My right hon. and learned Friend's Criminal Justice Bill, with the new framework for sentencing, will ensure that offenders are punished according to the seriousness of their crimes. In all but the most serious crimes the courts will have to consider a pre-sentence report before imposing imprisonment. Custody will need to be justified by the seriousness of the offence or the need to protect the public from harm. A wider and more flexible range of tough and demanding community penalties is proposed to enable more offenders to be adequately punished in the community.

Mr. Coombs: I strongly support the greater use of community-based punishments, but does my right hon. Friend agree that, if they are to have a deterrent effect as well as a rehabilitative effect, they must be significantly more rigorous and better monitored? What steps does he intend to take to ensure that that is done?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend will recognise that in some parts of the country supervision is not adequately firm and in other parts the probation service does an excellent job. My right hon. and learned Friend and I are trying to ensure higher standards through his proposed legislation and through national standards for the imposition of punishment in the community.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Minister contemplating any penalties for people who use sexist and abusive language on car phones?

Mr. Patten: There is a proposal in Lord Justice Taylor's report to outlaw the chanting of racist abuse at football games and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has announced that we shall pursue that as soon as possible.

Computer Crime

Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to improve police officers' training to investigate computer crime.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: The police staff college runs a 20-day course for computer crime investigators entitled "Investigative Techniques in Computer Crime". The course is subject to continuous review and takes account of suggestions from forces and regular contact with the computer crime unit of the Metropolitan police.

Mr. Colvin: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the Metropolitan police is well equipped to investigate highly sophisticated crimes, the 43 provincial forces are not? Will he confirm that, if necessary, they can enlist the


help of specialist computer firms with their inquiries, and would not it be a good idea if they were to add computer security to their crime prevention campaigns?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend's question is a matter for chief police officers. One of the advantages of the course that I mentioned is that officers from all police forces make contacts that enable them to know where to obtain additional expertise in the private sector, and it also enables them to have contact with the computer crime unit of the Metropolitan police, whose skills they can take advantage of.

Mr. Speaker: Questions to the Prime Minister——

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I insist on raising it now.

Mr. Speaker: Insist? The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Chairman's Panel. He knows that I take points of order at their proper time, not in the middle of questions.

Mr. Winterton: I am sorry, but I cannot hear what is going on in this place. Could the instruments be adjusted to enable us to hear? Could they possibly be turned up so that we can hear what Ministers and others are saying? It is important.

Mr. Speaker: Was that the point of order?

Mr. Winterton: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: This is in the hands of the House. If hon. Members do not make a noise or interrupt from the Back Benches, they will hear. The louder the microphones are turned up, the greater is the reflection from the amplifier back to the microphones. It makes even more noise.

Mr. Skinner: Heseltine will change all that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us start again.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Ashby: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 November.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with Chief Buthelezi.

Mr. Ashby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1983, when I was elected to the House, unemployment in my constituency was 16 per cent. but is now 3·2 per cent., despite losing its major industry of coal mining? Is she further aware that a recent study showed that there is more employment and greater prosperity than ever before? Is not that a reflection of experience throughout the country?

The Prime Minister: I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend's constituency is doing so well after eleven and a half years of Conservative Government: long may it

continue. We have the lowest unemployment rate in the Community, with the exception of Luxembourg. We have created some 2 million jobs since we took office and the future will depend very much on precisely how people run their businesses and keep their costs competitive.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Madrid conditions were imposed upon her by resignation threats from the then Foreign Secretary and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer?

The Prime Minister: Our undertaking to join the exchange rate mechanism stems from as far back as 1979, as the right hon. Gentleman will see if he looks at some of the manifestos of that period.

Mr. Kinnock: My question was specific, and so was the recollection of the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), with the obvious assent of the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). Is the Prime Minister telling us that there were no resignation threats on the issue of the Madrid conditions?

The Prime Minister: I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, that the exchange rate mechanism undertaking is very long standing. The right hon. Gentleman will have heard from the Dispatch Box many times that we would join when the time was right; we did join when the time was right, and no one has really been able to criticise that with validity.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the Prime Minister aware that local education authorities in Britain last year spent £18·6 billion? Is she further aware that, if the share carried by the poll tax were transferred to national taxation, according to the House of Commons Library it would mean an increase in income tax of 20 per cent., or more than 5p in the pound? Does the Prime Minister agree that anyone who claims that educational spending could be transferred from local councils to the Government without a huge increase in national taxation must be a political joker?

The Prime Minister: If all education costs were transferred to central Government and the grant were left with local government, it would mean a huge increase in income tax—as my hon. Friend has said—or a substantial reduction in the moneys available for other services, such as health, pensions, defence and law and order. There would be either a big increase in income tax or a substantial reduction in other public expenditure. The alternative is to take away the grant from local authorities, which in fact greatly exceeds the amount spent on education.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister recall saying to the London Standard, exactly five years ago yesterday, that she would "go in 5 years"? Does she recall her words at that time? She said:
then I would have been in 11½years",
adding that the time would then have come for someone else to "carry the torch"? What has changed her mind?

The Prime Minister: I confess that that was not the foremost thought in my mind at the present time. After three general election victories, leading, as I do, the only party with clear policies—resolutely carried out—I intend to continue.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware how disastrous it would be for the United Kingdom


clothing and textile industries if the multi-fibre arrangement were phased out before we had achieved a real and effective strengthening of GATT rules and disciplines, which, at a conservative estimate, would take at least a decade?

The Prime Minister: We must negotiate those things at the GATT talks. If we do not extend freedom of trade, many of our exports will be denied admission by third-world countries. In the past, textile quotas in one country have deliberately prevented it from making orders for other commodities—especially in engineering—from this country. We must negotiate that at GATT, and we intend to do so.

Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Barnes: Will the Prime Minister tell us who and what is fiddling the franchise in England, Scotland and Wales, where there is a shortfall of 600,000 on the electoral register? Will she also tell us who and what is fiddling the franchise in Finchley, where 8·5 per cent. have gone missing from the register in the past two years? That is equivalent to 32 people missing from an electorate of 372, however sophisticated or unsophisticated that electorate is. Are not the "who" the Prime Minister's current Government and former Governments—no matter who were members of those Governments—and the "what" the poll tax, which is unreformable in relation to the electoral register?

The Prime Minister: Local residents have a duty to register for the electoral roll and for the community charge, and they also have a duty to pay the community charge. Those who do not do so are passing their burden on to their neighbours while nevertheless expecting to have all local authority benefits.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the agreement on conventional forces in Europe, which she will sign in Paris next week, represents an historic step forward in arms control? Does she agree that, if the west had not maintained its resolute stand, led by her Government, that would never have been achieved?

The Prime Minister: Representatives of 35 nations will be at the conference in Paris, where we shall sign that excellent agreement. It is very beneficial to this country. It removes from us the danger of a surprise attack. It reduces the forces that we will have to keep in Europe. I agree with my hon. Friend that none of that would have been possible but for a resolute defence and, in particular, the stationing of cruise and Pershing missiles, Britain being the first to do so.

Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Thompson: Because in normal circumstances two heads are better than one, will the Prime Minister consider seeking the help of her right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) to sort out the poll tax problems?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment had a review of the community charge and made an announcement. All the effects have not yet come into action. Further orders following the announcement of that review are soon to be laid before the House. There will be some benefits from the extra transitional charge and from the £2·55 billion extra money that was allocated to the revenue support grant which goes to local authorities. All those measures have yet to come into effect.

Sir Hal Miller: At a time when people are trying to spread doom and gloom about our manufacturing industry, will my right hon. Friend reflect on the performance of the motor industry which, even last month, increased production, exports and investment? Will my right hon. Friend please support that success by ensuring that our continental partners do not impose limits on the export of cars made in this country?

The Prime Minister: Yes, to both parts of my hon. Friend's question. The British car industry is doing extremely well—better than it has done for many years. I think that Rover is the only company in Europe that is working 24 hours a day. It still has a waiting list for some of its products. That is an enormous change from when it was a nationalised industry. Cars are also exported from Ellesmere Port, which is very good. We shall do precisely what my hon. Friend wishes and try to ensure that all cars made in this country are freely exported and circulated around the European Community.

Mr. Faulds: In view of the somewhat sleazy appointments of some of the trustees to the boards of national institutions and in view of Gerald Ronson's conviction, what does the Prime Minister intend to do to take him off the board of the natural history museum?

The Prime Minister: All appointments to national institutions are made carefully, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware, and they will continue to be made carefully. People—the overwhelming majority—do a great service for those institutions.

Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hinchliffe: I should like to draw the Prime Minister's attention to the plight of many people in private care homes. As her Government have cut income support payments to those residents in real terms and as her Government intend to end housing benefit payments to those residents, what advice does the right hon. Lady have for those elderly and disabled people who face the prospect of going down market to cheaper, inferior accommodation or becoming homeless as a direct result of her Government's policies?

The Prime Minister: This Government have increased enormously the amount of taxpayers' money available for residential homes and for nursing homes. If the hon.


Gentleman looks up the figures, he will find that for every £1 Labour spent on those people in those homes, this Government are spending something over £100. It is a very good record.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when she came into office as Prime Minister in 1979, spinning mills and canning factories in my constituency had closed under the previous Labour Government and that in the small town where I live, almost 600 people found themselves out of work? Today, the unemployment level in that area is about 4 per cent. and take-home pay has increased by more than 25 per cent. over the rate of inflation. Does not that show that my right hon. Friend has done the right thing for Scotland and for the Scottish people?

The Prime Minister: We have not only the highest number ever of people in jobs in this country but the right background for enterprise to flourish and the lowest unemployment rate in the whole of Europe, with the exception of Luxembourg. It is a very good record. Added to that, we have the highest standard of living that we have ever achieved.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I inadvertently called two Opposition Members running, so I shall balance it up. I call Mr. Brazier.

Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the EC Ministers passed a resolute resolution on the Gulf crisis at the previous summit, but that when it comes to action, we see, once again, that Britain is proving to be the best European?

The Prime Minister: Both the United Nations and the European Community have passed excellent resolutions making it quite clear that Iraq must leave Kuwait and that the legitimate Government and the normal way of life in Kuwait must be restored. It is not the United Nations that can put its resolutions into effect, but the separate countries—those countries that have kept their armed forces fully up to date, flexible and able to go anywhere at short notice. In Europe, this country leads.

Mr. Darling: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Darling: The Prime Minister will be aware that her right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) suggested that the poll tax is capable of a fundamental review—despite the fact that he voted for the poll tax for Scotland. He must have changed his mind 12 months later, but I suppose that that is another matter. Does the Prime Minister consider that the poll tax is capable of a fundamental review or does she accept that the only fundamental review that it needs is complete repeal, which will be undertaken by the next Labour Government?

The Prime Minister: There was a fundamental review whose results have yet to show through in the poll tax or community charge payments next spring. I understand that the Opposition are going back to rates. They will have to have a revaluation after 17 years and the effects on people will be utterly devastating.

Mr. Lawrence: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. and learned Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Lawrence: When my right hon. Friend speaks for Britain at the Helsinki review conference next week in Paris, which will be attended by the other world leaders, will she ensure that the momentum in human rights that earlier conferences built up, so that human rights were introduced into the Soviet Union and into the eastern European countries, will be maintained?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that that development was one of the tremendous benefits of the Helsinki accord. It took a long time to show through, although we had increased Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union for some time, which then went down. It meant that those who were fighting for human rights in the eastern European countries and in the Soviet Union knew that they were not alone, and that we could and did inquire regularly of the Soviet Union and of the eastern European countries on their behalf. That was very, very beneficial indeed. We will continue to keep up all our beliefs in human rights and we will constantly raise questions about them. I hope, when I return from that conference in Paris, to make a statement to the House about it next Wednesday.

Business of the House

Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 19 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill.
TUESDAY 20 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill.
Motion to take note of EC document on aid to shipbuilding. Details will be given in the Official Report.
WEDNESDAY 21 NOVEMBER—Opposition day (1st Allotted Day). Until about seven o'clock there win be a debate entitled "The Scottish Economy". Afterwards there will be a debate entitled "The Textile Industry". Both debates arise on Opposition motions.
Motion on the Statistics of Trade Act 1947 (Amendment of Schedule) Order 1990.
THURSDAY 22 NOVEMBER—Until about seven o'clock Second Reading of the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill, followed by Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill.
FRIDAY 23 NOVEMBER—There will be a debate on the GATT round of trade negotiations on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 26 NovEMBER—Second Reading of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill.

[Tuesday 20 November

Relevant European Community documents:


8097/90
Aid to ship-building


9416/90
Report on shipbuilding industry in Community 1989

Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee HC 11-xxxii (1989–90)

Friday 23 November

Relevant European Community documents:


(a) Un-numbered
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade: Uruguay Round


(b) Un-numbered
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade: negotiations on Agriculture

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 29-i (1990–91)
(b) HC 43-v ( 1987–88 ), HC 43-xxxv ( 1987–88) and HC 15-i (1988–89)]

Dr. Cunningham: Why has not the Secretary of State for Wales made an oral statement on the revenue support grant for Wales? Should not hon. Members representing constituencies in the Principality have an opportunity to question the Secretary of State about the implications of that settlement for poll tax payers in Wales?
Does the Leader of the House intend to arrange a debate on European Community affairs before the intergovernmental conference on economic, monetary and political union takes place on 13 and 14 December? Given the widely acknowledged importance of the intergovernmental conference, and in recognition of the large divisions of opinion within the Government and the Conservative party, should not the House have the

opportunity to listen to such a debate so that Opposition Members at least may know which side will prevail before Britain's case is argued at that conference?
The Leader of the House will be aware that today we have had the announcement of the largest increase in unemployment for four and a half years. This is the seventh consecutive month in which unemployment has increased and it now stands at 1·7 million. Is not that yet another indication of the deepening economic and industrial recession that is the inevitable consequence of the policies being pursued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Will the Leader of the House arrange an early debate on the Government's economic and industrial policies—particularly as they apply to unemployment?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman's first question was about the revenue support grant for Wales. He will recognise that I shall have to look into that matter as, clearly, there are normally other times when that is discussed.
The hon. Gentleman asked about European Community affairs. It has been clear from our recent debates, in which economic and monetary issues and wider European issues have been discussed—most recently, yesterday—that there is substantial agreement on the Conservative Benches. I suspect that the divisions are really among Opposition Members.
The hon. Gentleman asked for time for a debate. As he will know, it is normally for the convenience of the House to hold traditional debates on the EC six-monthly White Paper. I understand that it has now been agreed that in those debates we should look forward as well as dealing with the previous six months. The timing of such a debate is best left for consideration through the usual channels, but if we can look forward in the debate, we can cover points to be discussed at the intergovernmental meeting. I agree that it is important that the House should have a debate on these matters before then.
The hon. Gentleman asked about unemployment. We have been debating industrial and economic matters extensively for the past two days, and the votes last night proved resoundingly that there is support for the Government's economic policies. I cannot hold out the prospect of another debate immediately. The hon. Gentleman will know that employment, which is the key factor, is at an all-time high. As I said in my speech last night, the number of the work force in employment has been rising for the past seven years. It has increased by 3·6 million in that time, and the United Kingdom still has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the whole Community.

Sir Peter Emery: I am sure that the House would want to thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for and congratulate him on his announcement yesterday which met part of our recommendation about the parliamentary calendar. We now know the dates for the Christmas and Easter recesses.
Is my right hon. Friend progressing with the appointment of members to the special European Standing Committees to deal with European matters which are not to be considered on the Floor of the House? I hope that the members will be appointed to those Committees so that they can begin operating perhaps by the end of the month.

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening comments. I hope that the announcement that I made yesterday evening, which of course must be subject to the satisfactory progress of business, will be for the convenience of all hon. Members. My hon. Friend's second point is a matter for the Committee of Selection to move ahead and select the members for those Committees. It is not a matter for me.

Mr. James Wallace: Although we had useful exchanges after the statement on the Cullen report by the Secretary of State for Energy on Monday, does the Leader of the House accept that that report is vast and, given that report and the issues of industrial relations in the offshore industry, do we not need a more substantive debate on the matter?
I am sure that the Leader of the House is doing his best to set up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, but may I suggest that he gets in touch with the Royal Bank of Scotland to discover whether the leave extended to the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) to run the Prime Minister's election campaign can be extended further to allow him to serve on a Scottish Select Committee?

Mr. MacGregor: I have nothing to add to what I said yesterday evening about the Scottish Select Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) has many talents and he can carry out many functions at the same time, but I am not sure that he could do them all. I have said that I will look into the matter, but I think that it is very unlikely that progress can be made on it.
The House had a full exchange on the Piper Alpha report on Monday. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have accepted the recommendations in the Cullen report. I cannot promise an early or immediate debate on the matter, because we have a very full programme in the weeks ahead.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the House should have an opportunity kr examine not only Government policies but those of the Opposition as well? If he accepts that, will he arrange for at least one day of Government time to allow us to debate and examine the Labour party's education policies which are both deceitful and dishonest in as much as they exist and will contribute nothing to the raising of standards, but will rather lead to the destruction of the grammar schools, city technology colleges and grant-maintained schools and will hinder the education opportunities of thousands of children?

Mr. MacGregor: I cannot promise a precise all-day debate on the Labour party's policies. However, there will be many opportunities to raise those issues. My hon. Friend will be aware that last night I made precisely the same points that he has just made about some aspects of the Labour party's education policies.

Mr. David Clelland: Is the Leader of the House aware of the increasing incidence of stolen vehicles speeding through residential areas, one of which last night ended in the tragic death of a 10-month-old baby in my constituency? Can he promise an early statement on that problem which will include an examination of the inadequacies of the law relating to car theft and the resourcing of the police and which will also include the provision of adequate and proper resources to local

authorities to allow them to provide traffic calming devices in residential areas without the fear of poll tax capping or having to cut other essential services?

Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the whole House will be sorry to hear of yesterday's tragic accident. There will be a debate on road safety tomorrow in which the hon. Gentleman can raise such matters.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 4 which deals with compensation for haemophiliac AIDS victims?
[That this House calls upon the Secretary of State for Health urgently to conclude an out-of-court settlement with people with haemophilia who were infected with the AIDS virus in the course of National Health Service treatment and with their families in cases where they have already died.]
Is he aware that there is continuing and growing concern about the plight of people who are suffering through no fault of their own? If the Government would change their mind on the subject, that would meet with universal approval.

Mr. MacGregor: This matter was raised last week in business questions, and I said then that, as my hon. Friend knows, the Government have always accepted the strong moral argument in favour of the haemophiliacs, and that is why we have made £34 million available for ex gratia payments and have promised to keep that figure under review. However, the Government do not accept liability and will resist any settlement that implies admission of negligence. This matter has been discussed on a number of occasions, so I cannot promise an early debate in the normal way.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on energy policy as it affects certain manufacturing industries such as the glass industry? He may be aware that the French are alleged to subsidise their energy costs. As the Government are about to sell off the electricity industry, would it not be fair if the House were to discuss the subject, because glass is more expensive to make here than in France, which is costing us British jobs?

Mr. MacGregor: There was the opportunity during the debate on the Queen's Speech to raise a large number of industrial issues, and I am sure that there will be other opportunities for the hon. Member to raise that issue if he so wishes. I cannot promise a debate on it in the near future.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I thank my right hon. Friend for announcing today that there will be a debate next week on the textile industry, albeit that that short debate will be in Opposition time and that there will be a debate on the general agreement on tariffs and trade. Will he give the House an assurance that in both debates a Minister of the highest level will be present and will take on board the views of the House so that, when the Government negotiate the future of the multi-fibre arrangement under the GATT renegotiations and the new treaty, the interests of an industry that employs more than half a million people will be taken fully into account, and that the views in other European countries that there should be a phasing out period of a minimum of 10 years, preferably 15 years, will be adopted by the British Government?

Mr. MacGregor: I shall not comment on the substance of the matters because, as my hon. Friend says, there will be two opportunities next week to debate them, which is more than we have in any one week. One will be in Opposition time and the other will be a full day's debate on the GATT Uruguay round. I put this subject into next week's business in response to the many requests that I received last week. An appropriate Minister will respond on both occasions.

Mr. Bill Michie: I congratulate the three British women who, through their bravery, delayed the testing of the United Kingdom bomb in the Nevada desert the other day. Yesterday I suggested, on a point of order, that as there had been no debate on nuclear testing, even though discussions are taking place to ensure that there is no spread of nuclear weapons, there should be one. Quite rightly, Mr. Speaker, you advised me to raise the matter with the Leader of the House.
As this is such an important issue—the cold war is over and there is concern about the spread of nuclear weapons and technology—should not the House debate these issues? May we have Government time for such a debate?

Mr. MacGregor: We had a full day's debate on foreign and defence matters last week and there will be other opportunities, such as at Question Time, to raise the matter. I cannot promise a full day's debate soon.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Notwithstanding the fact that we are to have a debate on
the Armed Forces Bill next week—a purely disciplinary measure—and that recently we had a debate during the Queen's Speech debate on foreign affairs and defence, could my right hon. Friend bring forward at the earliest possible debate, preferably before the Christmas recess, the three single service debates, as there is a prolonged deployment of our armed forces in the Gulf and an imminent threat of war in that theatre?

Mr. MacGregor: I have heard what my hon. Friend said, but I cannot say how we shall be spending our time between now and the Christmas recess. I shall bear his point in mind.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Is it not pathetic for Tory Members of Parliament to criticise the Common Market on the basis that European manufactured exports to the United Kingdom are vastly greater than United Kingdom manufactured exports to Europe, especially given the Government's policy, which has destroyed vast swathes of manufacturing industry, and high interest rates, which are hampering and hindering that industry? Given the threat to Scotland's steel industry, and manufacturing firms such as Howdens, may we have an urgent debate on Scotland's steel industry and other manufacturing industries?

Mr. MacGregor: Manufacturing investment is at an all-time high. The hon. Gentleman cannot have heard me say that there will be a debate on the Scottish economy next week.

Mr. John Marshall: May I ask my right hon. Friend to read early-day motion 30?
[That this House, on the occasion of the 700th anniversary of the expulsion of Jews from Britain, expresses its deep concern at the increase in the dissemination of antisemitic and racist materials in the United Kingdom;

notes that none of the 21 antisemitic publications referred to the Attorney-General by the Board of Deputies of British Jews since 1986 have resulted in prosecutions; believes that firm, swift and effective action must be taken to cure neo-Nazi activity; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take such action against those responsible for these odious publications.]
My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is widespread concern at the growth of anti-semitism in the United Kingdom. Will he bring the law into line so that individuals who practise it can be prosecuted, which they are not now?

Mr. MacGregor: As I have said to my hon. Friend, I am aware of the concern to which he has referred. I have read early-day motion 30. My hon. Friend will know that there have been 11 prosecutions since 1986 for the incitement of racial hatred, which have included allegations involving antisemitic material. A further case is outstanding. Of the cases drawn to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, nine—the most recent—are still under investigation or consideration.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The Leader of the House was helpful when he referred to the Piper Alpha disaster, and the House is grateful to him for that. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will take into account the fact that a debate in the House is urgent. In addition to the recommendations set out in the Cullen report, which are excellent, there are outstanding matters. I ask the rig ht hon. Gentleman to reflect on the deep concern, and sometimes anger, that is felt by the work force. Many safety-related matters need to be reviewed by the House, not least the role of the Department of Energy, the management and its attitude and the need for a role to be played by the trade union movement. The House would like to discuss these matters.

Mr. MacGregor: I understand the hon. Gentleman 's concernabout the work force. I think that that was made plain on Monday, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy made clear the role of the Department and the acceptance of the report's recommendations in that respect. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend. There are difficulties about having an early debate on the specific subjects that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Mr. Chris Butler: Will my right hon. Friend find time soon to discuss the developing structure within the brewing industry? With the possible closure of the Greenall Whitley brewery, the largest regional brewer in the United Kingdom, and the closure of Matthew Brown and other developments, it seems that we are achieving a less diversified and competitive brewing industry. Now might be the time for a review of the industry.

Mr. Macgregor: I know of my hon. Friend's concern about these matters, and especially his constituency concern. I know also that he has raised them on several occasions both in the House and directly with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He will know that the measures adopted by the Government following the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on beer have been extensively debated in the House on several occasions in the past year.


The aim of the Government's measures is to promote a more competitive market for beer and other drinks. It is for individual companies to decide how best to respond to greater competition. I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry once again.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some weeks ago I asked the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), when he was Leader of the House, to consider providing a stairlift for easy access to wheelchair users to the Grand Committee Room and the Jubilee Room, and a loop for hearing aid users? The right hon., and learned Gentleman replied that he would give the matter the attention that it deserved. I fear that since then he has been occupied with other matters. I believe, however, that the matter which I raised deserves urgent attention, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to see what he can do to provide the facilities.

Mr. MacGregor: I am tempted to say to the hon. Lady, so have I. I shall look into the matter. It is not one that has yet been drawn to my attention. I think that it would be a matter for the House of Commons Commission, and I shall look into it in that context.

Mr. Harry Greenway: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motions 2 and 3, signed by both Conservative and Opposition Members?
[That this House abhors the prospect of a resumption in the export of horses and ponies to continental abattoirs after 1992; urges the European Community ( the European Commission, European Parliament and all member states) to recognise that the ending of British export controls linked to minimum values would mean the rounding up of Dartmoor and other wild ponies for degrading and wholly unfamiliar transport to and across Europe; and calls for changes to proposed European Community measures on the protection of animals during transport, in order to maintain restrictions which avoid cruel treatment to British horses and ponies during long journeys and at continental slaughterhouses.]
The matter causes great anxiety to people throughout the country. The motions deal with the export of live equines after 1992. There is huge anxiety that after that date, unless suitable alternatives to the minimum values controls are put in place, there will be brutal slaughter of our equines. That will be unacceptable to the people of Britain. May we have a debate on the entirely unacceptable policies of the European Commission on the matter?

Mr. MacGregor: I understand and share my hon. Friend's anxiety. Many of us have had many representations from our constituents on the matter. I am sure that my hon. Friend, who takes such a close interest in matters relating to horses and ponies, will be aware that the Government are fully committed to retaining controls to ensure that horses and ponies are not exported from Britain for slaughter abroad. The matter is being debated in the European Community. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is well aware of the views of the House, but I shall again draw his attention to my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Is the Leader of the House aware that today is the fifth anniversary of the imposition of the infamous Anglo-Irish diktat and that Ulster Unionists and British citizens in Northern Ireland remain totally opposed to it? It has been rejected. Our opposition is no less than it was when a quarter of a million people protested peacefully at the city hall in Belfast. Does the Leader of the House recognise that the territorial claim in articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Republic's constitution is offensive? Will he undertake as soon as possible to provide a proper debate in the House so that hon. Members' views on those two major issues can be expressed and constructive suggestions can be made to the Irish Government?

Mr. MacGregor: I am aware that today is the fifth anniversary. The hon. Gentleman will know that there will be an opportunity for a debate on Monday next when the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill comes before the House. No doubt that will be an opportunity for some hon. Members to express their views again about the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Mr. Barry Field: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the House has set an excellent example in saving trees by introducing the new slimline Order Paper. The change seems to have the agreement of hon. Members on both sides of the House. However, my right hon. Friend may not be aware that Departments still send copies of replies to questions even when the hon. Member has had an answer in oral questions. Will my right hon. Friend use his considerable influence to make Departments stop that time-wasting exercise and save even more trees?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter and for saying that the change has had such a favourable response from hon. Members on both sides of the House. It saves not only trees but substantial sums of money in publishing costs. Therefore, it is a sensible measure. I shall look into the point that my hon. Friend has raised.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: May we expect a statement next week announcing the promotion of the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) from the Northern Ireland Office to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of his expertise on the diagnosis of mad cow disease?

Mr. MacGregor: I myself have had to deal with BSE in the past. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's question has much to do with business questions and I cannot see any opportunity for the matter to be raised next week.

Mr. John Butcher: Is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday Coventry cathedral and Coventry city council arranged a magnificent and moving commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the blitz of Coventry? Will he, together with you, Mr. Speaker, consider sending the bishop and the leader of the city council an appropriate appreciation of the way in which the event was put together? Will he also advise Members of the House on protocol and a sense of responsibility on such occasions? The President of the German Republic was present and the Queen Mother was present; three Labour Members of Parliament were absent. Surely that discloses a pretty awful lack of responsibility——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not an appropriate matter to raise with the Leader of the House at business questions. The hon. Member must ask for a debate.

Mr. Butcher: Surely that displays a lack of responsibility and a lack of courtesy whether——

Mr. Speaker: No. It is not the object of business questions to make attacks across the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman must ask a business question, and I think that he has done so.

Dr. Cunningham: May I invite you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his attack on my colleagues?

Mr. Speaker: It was an inappropriate matter to raise at business questions, and I shall be grateful if the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) will rephrase what he said.

Mr. Butcher: In due course, there should be some discussion of these events, which are important, and, in due course, there should be a debate. I have been challenged about whether those hon. Members were invited—[Interruption.] My point is—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. In terms of good order in the Chamber and between both sides of the House, the hon. Gentleman should withdraw any aspersions that he has made against Opposition Members, because he has already said that he has no knowledge of whether they were invited.

Mr. Butcher: I am perfectly willing to withdraw any allegations about whether or not hon. Members responded to an invitation. I am simply saying that we in the House should have a sense of priorities about attending such events in any capacity—even as members of the general public.

Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the whole House will agree with what my hon. Friend said about the importance of yesterday's event. I heard some reference to it on the radio and therefore share his views about it. My hon. Friend made some reference to you, Mr. Speaker, and to myself, which I shall happily discuss with you.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: May I add my voice to those who have pleaded for the Secretary of State for Wales to make a statement to the House about the Welsh revenue support settlement because, as a result of the way in which the poll tax is working—and especially the way in which the community charge is working in Wales—there is a desperate need for an early statement, next week if possible?
Will the Leader of the House clarify whether the debate on the GATT round on Friday of next week will be broad enough to encompass all the serious issues hitting agriculture at the moment because they raise some further topics?

Mr. MacGregor: On the first point, I cannot add to what I have said already, but obviously I shall look into the matter. On the second point, yes, next Friday's debate will cover all the GATT issues, of which agriculture is clearly a prominent, if not the main, issue.

Mr. Harry Ewing: May I ask the Leader of the House a simple and uncontroversial question on a House of Commons matter that might need urgent

attention next Wednesday? In the event of a change in the personage of the principal occupant of the Treasury Bench, would the Leader of the House ensure that the Mace is firmly secured in its place when the House meets next Wednesday?

Mr. MacGregor: I expected a comment like that when the hon. Gentleman began his question. I have every confidence that my right hon. Friend will be Prime Minister—[Interruption.]—that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be Prime Minister then—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which right hon. Friend?"] My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I have already made that clear.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Leader of the House will be well aware that private Bills have caused the House considerable trouble and have taken up a great deal of time in recent years; that a joint Select Committee of this House and the other place was set up to study the future of such procedures, that the Government produced a consultation document in the summer and that the consultation responses had to be in by the end of September. Is it not now time that we legislated to reform the private Bill procedure? Will the Government bring forward some proposals at an early opportunity?

Mr. MacGregor: I know that my predecessor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), was looking actively at this matter, and he has already discussed it with me. I hope to give some attention to it myself fairly shortly.

Mr. Max Madden: May I thank the Leader of the House for responding favourably to early-day motion 6, which has been signed by more than 100 hon. Members of all parties and which asks for a debate on GATT?
[That this House, recognising the importance of the textile and clothing industries to the economy of the United Kingdom, urges Her Majesty's Government to arrange an early debate to discuss the present and future trading prospects of these industries; and believes the Multi-Fibre Arrangement should be retained unless adequate transitional arrangements are agreed and proper safeguards for the British industries are incorporated into the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.]
I echo the earlier comments of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I understand that Ministers will be occupied with other matters over the weekend, relating to leadership elections, but could the Leader of the House telephone the hapless Ministers who will speak in the debate on textiles on Wednesday and on GATT on Friday and tell them that they can expect considerable trouble unless they can give the House firm assurances that the multi-fibre arrangement will not be phased out unless and until firm safeguards are incorporated into GATT, and that even then we will tolerate the MFA being phased out only over a minimum of 10 years? Anything less than that and there will be considerable trouble. Will the Leader of the House warn those Ministers in advance?

Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that my right hon. Friends will be well able to make their cases in both debates.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Now that the Lord President has been in office for a few days, and now that we have an alternative Cabinet in waiting—or at least


canvassing—may we have a little more fairness in the answering of questions, for which the Lord President has some responsibility? Is it fair in the run-up to the election for the Prime Minister for only one answer to be given to every question, when there are two key contestants for the job? In the interests of balance and political impartiality, it would make sense for the House to hear the views of Ministers representing the Prime Minister and——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's question is in the same category as that of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher). Questions should be about next week's business.

Mr. Skinner: I want a statement as early as possible next week, before Tuesday's election, or afterwards if it runs on, so that, instead of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) telling people in the Tea Room about his policies on education, the poll tax, housing, cardboard city, and taxation, they can be explained in this Chamber. Will the Leader of the House arrange that for next week? We are all waiting.

Mr. MacGregor: As always, the hon. Gentleman has raised many points, but I shall respond to only one. The shadow Cabinet seated on the Front Bench opposite me will be waiting for a very long time.

Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a statement on the proposed Nevada desert test explosion, which was stopped by four gallent and courageous people yesterday? Will a Minister explain how the Government pick and choose their support for the United Nations? They support the United Nations when it comes to the Gulf, but sling out its nuclear non-proliferation treaty when it comes to spending £10 billion on Trident nuclear weapons and the testing of nuclear weapons to keep them in potential operational use. Clause 6 of that treaty places an obligation on the Government to get rid of nuclear weapons. When will the Government do something about that, realise that the cold war is over and that the warmonger who has been leading the Conservative party for 11 years is under severe criticism and may be sacked in any case, and get rid of nuclear weapons and testing?

Mr. MacGregor: I said in response to an earlier request that I do not see an opportunity for a debate on that subject next week. However, in relation to disarmament generally, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be signing the

important CSCE treaty next week, and will report to the House on that matter. That is a clear indication of the effectiveness of the Government's action.

Mr. James Hill: My right hon. Friend will be aware that this is merchant navy shipping year. He will also be aware of the concern of the General Council of British Shipping that that service may not be able in future to provide ancillary vessels to support any military operation. Will it be possible to debate next week that very serious matter?

Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that it will be possible next week. However, the House will be debating a European Community document on aid to shipbuilding. Although it may be narrowly focused, it may give my hon. Friend an opportunity to make one or two points.

BILLS PRESENTED

SCHOOL TEACHERS' PAY AND CONDITIONS

Mr. Secretary Clarke, supported by Mr. Secretary Patten, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Secretary Howard, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Tim Eggar, Mr. Alan Howarth and Mr. Michael Fallon, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the remuneration and other conditions of employment of school teachers; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 11.]

ATOMIC WEAPONS ESTABLISHMENT

Mr. Secretary King, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Patten, Mr. Secretary Howard, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Francis Maude, Mr. Alan Clark and Mr. Kenneth Carlisle, presented a Bill to make provision in connection with any arrangements that may be made by the Secretary of State with respect to the undertaking carried on by him and known as the Atomic Weapons Establishment: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 13.]

IMPORT AND EXPORT CONTROL

Mr. Secretary Lilley, supported by Mr. Secretary Hurd, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary King, Mr. Secretary Wakeham and Mr. Tim Sainsbury, presented a Bill to repeal section 9(3) of the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 12.]

Indirect Tax Harmonisation and Statistics

The Paymaster General(Mr. Richard Ryder): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 6762/89 on approximation of indirect taxes, 9775/89 on excise duty rates, 9776/89 on taxes on cigarettes and manufactured tobacco, 9777/89 on excise duties on mineral oils, 9778/89 on excise duties on alcoholic beverages, 6641/90 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise on 12th November 1990 on supplementing the common system of value-added tax, 6642/90 on administrative co-operation in the field of indirect taxation, 6725/90 and 8801/90 on statistics relating to trading of goods between Member States, COM(90) 430 on the general excise regime, COM(90) 431 on general arrangements for the movement of products subject to excise duty, COM(90) 432 on harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcoholic beverages, COM(90) 433 on taxes other than turnover taxes levied on manufactured tobacco and COM(90) 434 on structures of excise duties on mineral oils; and supports the Government's view that the technical proposals can form the basis of a single market without fiscal frontiers that is effective against fraud and provides the statistics needed by Government to control its economic policies while minimising the burdens on business, particularly for the smaller traders; and recognises the need for early progress on these proposals, separate from those on indirect tax rates on which decisions need not be reached before 31st December 1991.
At the Economic and Finance Council next week, Finance Ministers will be asked to consider a package which has been drawn up during many months—indeed years. My purpose this afternoon is to explain these technical proposals as concisely as I can and to listen to some of the views expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House which could influence the line that the British Government take at next week's Council meeting and subsequent ECOFINs. First, I should explain that in the normal course of events this debate would have been opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude), the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is responsible for negotiating on Britain's behalf in Europe. The reason for his absence today is that he is negotiating for us at a Budget Council in Brussels, and I am acting as a stand-in.

Mr. Barry Field: Even if my hon. Friend is a stand-in for the Financial Secretary, can he confirm that he will resist with equal zeal the European Commission's demands for value added tax on passenger transport, especially on ferry transport, as that would have a disastrous effect on offshore islands in the United Kingdom? When discussing harmonisation of taxation, will my hon. Friend be able to consider concessions on duty-free sales being phased out under EC regulations, as that is a matter of considerable concern to British shipowners and would have a considerable effect on increases in the price of cross-Channel travel?

Mr. Ryder: The existence or abolition of duty-free sales will not be tackled in earnest at ECOFIN on Monday. As my hon. Friend says, however, it is an issue which will be considered at ECOFIN during the next few months. The British Government have yet to make a decision on the line that we shall take on duty-free sales. I am in the process of meeting several delegations of people who wish to maintain the existing duty-free procedures, as I suspect my hon. Friend does. Only yesterday, I met my noble Friend

Lord Rees—a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury—who led a delegation of people representing the industry, who want to maintain the status quo. I shall meet other deputations during the next few weeks, before the Government take a final decision.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) will recall that I wrote him a letter on 24 October about passenger transport.

Mr. Barry Field: An excellent letter.

Mr. Ryder: I thank my hon. Friend for that kind remark. I hope that the arguments that I expressed were helpful to him. That is the present Government position and at this stage I have nothing further to add.
Abolition of fiscal frontiers has been one of the most contentious areas of the entire single market programme. There is no argument about the objective—indeed, abolition of fiscal frontiers is firm Government policy—but there has been considerable discussion about what needed to be done to achieve that objective. The United Kingdom's approach to the package of measures that we are discussing this afternoon has been an excellent example of the Europe that the Government are committed to—a practical Europe which offers benefits for people and businesses.
European Finance Ministers meet next Monday to consider progress of the official working groups on the Commission's VAT and excise technical proposals. The proposals follow agreement by the Finance Ministers' Council last year that, for the time being, the present, familiar system, whereby goods are exported untaxed and subjected to VAT and excise duties in the country of destination, should continue to apply, but without fiscal frontier controls. It is proper that the House should have the opportunity to debate these proposals first, and that the information available to the House should be as up to date as possible. I therefore submitted a supplementary explanatory memorandum on Monday to inform the House of developments on the Commission's proposals for control of the VAT system, once fiscal frontiers for intra-EC trade have gone.
As the House knows, the United Kingdom Government have spearheaded efforts to work out the practical fiscal arrangements for the creation of a single market, so as to provide a better environment for wealth creation through increased competition and unrestricted trade. During the negotiations on the technical systems to replace the existing customs formalities, the Government have kept it in mind that the new systems should be deregulatory, simple, as close to domestic arrangements as possible and as strong as possible against fraud without involving an unacceptable level of additional bureaucracy. Moreover, the new systems must be capable of implementation by 1 January 1993. Our intention is that traders should be left free to concentrate on what they are supposed to be doing—trading.
Under the VAT technical and administrative co-operation proposals—Council document Nos. 6641/90 and 6642/90—the great majority of intra-Community supplies, those between VAT registered businesses, will continue to be zero-rated. However the conceptual basis will change, since the idea of "import" and "export" will have no place in the internal market. Instead, tax will become due on the acquisition of goods by a business from another member state and the business will show this


liability on the normal periodic VAT return used for domestic transactions, with the concurrent right to deduct tax as appropriate. In this way, VAT will still accrue to the member state where the goods are consumed.
For example, a United Kingdom business purchasing furniture from Italy is currently liable to pay VAT at the time the furniture actually enters the United Kingdom, with the inevitable costs and delays of formalities at frontiers. Under the concept of "acquisition", VAT would become due on transfer of the legal ownership of the furniture and would be accounted for through the United Kingdom's purchaser's normal records, without any need to endure frontier formalities.
To avoid significant trade and fiscal distortion, special arrangements will be introduced for private purchases of new motor vehicles and mail order sales, and cross-border purchases by exempt businesses and non-taxable organisations in excess of 35,000 ecu per year.

Mr. Alex Carlile: May I put to the hon. Gentleman a point that arises from what he has just said? If liability is to arise on transfer, that raises serious problems about when title to goods passes. The law on when title to goods passes is very different in the various Community countries. Indeed, there are differences between the laws of England and Scotland on that subject. Those differences are but small compared with the differences between the law of England and, let us say, the law of Greece. Is an effort being made to harmonise the law on when title to goods passes?

Mr. Ryder: The hon. and learned Gentleman highlights an important point. I know that that point was made when these matters were discussed at official level in Brussels. Efforts will be made to ensure that his point is taken on board. My view, although it may be proved wrong, is that there is little chance of the Economic and Finance Council reaching agreement on Monday next. An agreement in principle will, I believe, be reached at a later stage. I shall certainly ensure that my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North, who will represent the Government next Monday and who will read Hansard before he departs for Brussels, is made aware of the hon. and learned Gentleman's points.
Inevitably, removal of customs fiscal frontier controls will risk creating new fraud opportunities. To counter this, the Commission has proposed an enhanced system for mutual assistance between national tax authorities after 1992. That would provide the means for much greater exchange of information to ensure that the benefits for legitimate traders of removing those frontiers are not also a benefit for the fraudulent. This information will be supplied by one Administration only for the use of another. It will thus be confidential and, save as allowed by the providing member state, will be used only for taxation purposes or in connection with judicial or administrative proceedings connected with tax assessment.
Other member states, for reasons of their own, have gone for much heavier controls which we have consistently opposed. They have argued for controls such as mandatory listings of all intra-EC trade, transaction by transaction. This would impose major new burdens on business. The domestic system of audit of traders' ordinary commercial records is already well proven by Customs and

Excise; we shall therefore continue to argue that, in providing information for this cross-border verification, only the minimum additional requirements for business to provide information necessary should be considered. To this end, we are considering a less burdensome compromise proposal, that traders shall periodically provide a summary of customers and aggregate sales to each.
In revising the sixth VAT directive, the basis of the Community VAT system, to provide for the post-1992 technical arrangements, the Commission's text neglects to carry forward a number of derogations, including that for our zero rates. The Commission already accepts the continuation of zero rates and its objective is, therefore, certainly not to eliminate them. It may, however, be an attempt to obtain more leverage to press for early agreement on the precise scope of the zero rate category.
Of course, the Government have pledged to protect the United Kingdom's zero rates—not only in the specific pledges given in respect of food, domestic fuel and power and children's clothing and footwear, but as a general defence of the indirect tax structure which we believe suits this country. The United Kingdom's position is ultimately protected by the need for unanimity on fiscal proposals. However, other member states with important derogations to protect also cannot give final agreement to the technical proposals. Conscious of this, we are seeking to reach agreement in principle on the technical system, without becoming sidetracked once more in the rates harmonisation argument. Once agreement in principle on the technical system has been reached, we shall return to this question and the important details of the proposals where existing arrangements need to be protected.
The Commission's technical proposals provide a clear basis on which fiscal frontiers can be removed, and the economic benefits of the single market obtained without the straitjacket of centrally determined tax approximation. Our priority this year is therefore to reach agreement at Community level on the technical systems to apply after 1992. This is an imperitive if we, and businesses, are to be ready for 1993. We do not intend to become sidetracked by fruitless discussion about rates. Indeed, Finance Ministers have agreed that decisions on this issue need not be reached until the end of 1991.
The Commission finally presented to EC Finance Ministers at the Economic and Finance Council proposals for controlling cross-border commercial consignments of excise goods.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: My hon. Friend has confirmed that one of the features of the complicated negotiations has been a willingness on all sides to compromise and accept an emerging package that will be beneficial to all. I apologise for having missed the initial part of my hon. Friend's speech.
There are always special national interests in member states, even for Euro-enthusiasts to refer to legitimately so has my hon. Friend been able to clarify further the position of British sherry in respect of the proposal for higher duty rates on fortified alcoholic products, which would harm the position of British sherry? I declare a direct interest—it is on the public register—as the parliamentary representative of the, British Wine Producers' Committee. Will the December meeting with Customs and Excise in Brussels, at which a representative of my hon. Friend's Department will be present look into that again carefully


to ensure that the interests of British sherry are properly safeguarded, as are the many other national interests of member states in these complicated negotiations? Can he reassure me?

Mr. Ryder: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I explained just before he came into the Chamber that the negotiations at ECOFIN on Monday were being undertaken by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury who is today at a Budget Council in Brussels. The negotiations are entirely in his hands. Nevertheless, I am aware of the problem about British sherry, though I did not know of my hon. Friend's interest in the subject until he mentioned it. I can assure him that we will continue to do our best to protect the interests of British sherry as long as those interests are consistent with our general approach to the negotiations which, as my hon. Friend knows, have been going on for the past few years. As my hon. Friend appreciates, the discussions are extremely technical and we have come a long way relatively quickly, bearing in mind the position from which we started.
The Government have played a constructive role in trying to reach compromises. Indeed, many of the compromises that I have set out are the direct result of ideas suggested in Brussels by the British Government. That is a further example of the positive way in which we negotiate on these technical matters. Such negotiations take place almost every week, but are little noticed in the House or by the press.
As I said, the Commission finally presented proposals for controlling cross-border commercial consignments of excise goods to ECOFIN in October. There are four proposals: one on controlling intra-EC movements without frontier checks, and three on excise duty structures for alcohol, oils and tobacco. The essential elements of the proposal on controls are that excise duties would continue to be charged in the member state of consumption, with the majority of commercial movements travelling under a duty-suspension scheme between authorised warehousekeepers and traders. We broadly welcome the new movement proposal, which, as I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), largely follows United Kingdom ideas.
Common excise duty structures facilitate cross-border trade by creating an understandable and recognisable common system of classification and an agreed basis for taxation. They are also essential for determining a common system of control. The Government therefore believe it sensible to enter into negotiations on the structure proposals. However, they are linked with the earlier Commission proposals for harmonised duty rates, to which I shall refer shortly. That is unacceptable and will be resisted, in accordance with our market forces beliefs.
A subsidiary point arising from these arrangements to ensure that commercial transactions in excise goods pay duty in the country of destination—but one of considerable public interest—is the implications for personal cross-border shopping. As one part of the fiscal preparations for the single market, in July 1989 the Commission proposed an increase in three annual stages in the travellers' allowances for goods acquired duty and tax-paid in another EC country. By 1992, these proposals would quadruple the value allowance for goods subject only to VAT to about £1,100 and double the allowances for wines, spirits and tobacco.
The Government have consistently supported increases in those allowances. Indeed, we are willing to agree straight away to the levels proposed by the Commission for 1992, rather than to have annual rises. Increased allowances are an important signal that the single market is for people as well as businesses.
So far, the proposals have been bogged down because some member states that are concerned about fiscal leakage are unwilling to adopt the proposed transitional increases. We are willing to consider all compromise proposals which may achieve movement on this key issue. After 1992, in general, limits on travellers' allowances should not be necessary, but we will need some means to distinguish excise goods—drink and tobacco—for personal use which can be bought at low duty rates in other member states from commercial importations which should pay United Kingdom duty. A high limit, beyond which larger quantities could reasonably be considered commercial in intent, may be a strong possibility. By gradually increasing travellers' allowances for cross-border shopping, the Government believe that market forces will be given the scope to bring about such convergence of tax rates as is necessary.
The Commission's revised excise duty rate proposals, published in January, are not very different from the previous 1987 proposals, and are therefore equally unacceptable. Essentially, it suggests, for tobacco and alcohol, differentiated minimum rates to be applied from 1 January 1993, coupled with target rates, for which no date is specified. For mineral oils, the proposal is for minimum rates, without target rates, for petrol, LPG, methane and kerosene used as engine fuel, and rate bands for diesel, heating oil and heavy fuel.
We do not believe that such changes to United Kingdom excise duties are necessary for the single market or desirable, given the very different economic and social circumstances of the 12 member states.
The United Kingdom's visible trade statistics are gathered mainly from customs documentation, which is completed when goods pass through frontier controls. With no fiscal frontier controls, those customs declarations for EC trade will join the bonfire of paperwork. Instead, the new statistics proposal creates a link between VAT returns and statistical systems. The majority of traders would simply provide aggregate details of EC imports and exports on their normal VAT return. Only larger traders would be required to provide a specific statistical return. Our objective is that this detailed return should be limited to about the largest 20 per cent. of traders, in terms of the value of intra-EC imports and exports. This would capture details of some 96 per cent. of United Kingdom trade with the EC.
I have attempted to keep my opening remarks as clear and concise as possible, but a wide range of issues are encompassed by the motion and I have tried to cover the main issues. I believe that these proposals, while not perfect, reflect well on the Government's persistence and commitment to a practical, achievable system—an approach which has succeeded this year in persuading others in Brussels of the need to focus priorities on the practical requirements for removing fiscal frontiers by the end of 1992.
Much remains to be negotiated, and I welcome the opportunity to hear hon. Members' views.

Dr. John Marek: I am pleased that the House has been given the chance to debate these topics. As the Paymaster General pointed out, there are many different issues and papers before us. However, although some of the issues may be technical, they are nevertheless important as they will affect future indirect taxation in Britain and the future collection of statistics. Therefore, it is only right for the House to be able to debate them. I pay tribute to the Select Committee on European Legislation for its work before today's debate.
The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) may have missed the first few minutes of the debate, but he has been here ever since—unlike the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), who came in and intervened before the Paymaster General had said anything of real substance, apart from his apology for the absence of the Financial Secretary, who is no doubt absent for some lobbying purpose. The hon. Gentleman then immediately disappeared, and has not been seen in the Chamber since. If he returns while I am speaking, I shall repeat what I have said and give him a chance to intervene if he wishes.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful for the encomium that my hon. Friend addressed to the Select Committee on European Legislation, of which I have the privilege to be Chairman. Will he also pay tribute to the staff of that Committee, the civil servants who write memoranda about complicated documents and the Vote Office staff? Is it not both notable and a scandal that the motion encompasses 37 documents, all of which were made available to hon. Members and the Vote Office but which constitute a very indigestible meal? I hope to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that I can say more about the matter.

Dr. Marek: I gladly join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the work of staff from all parts of the House who have brought forward these documents, but their work has meant that we ought to have more time to consider them. I wonder whether last Thursday's business statement gives hon. Members enough time to consider all these matters—especially in view of the fact that the Vote Office has also been caught unawares, and cannot collate the documents until Thursday night or Friday morning.
I share some of the worries of the hon. Member for Harrow, East that some of the banding for duties on liquors and spirits is a little odd. The band should encompass different products within the whole range; the duties should not perform arbitrary jumps, as they appear to do at present. That is a technical point, but I hope that the Paymaster General will look into it so that, for example, British sherry is not disadvantaged and still table wine is placed in a single category, regardless of its strength.
There are other little inconsistencies. For instance, the Commission's latest proposal seems to have abandoned the principle of levying duty on alcoholic beverages according to their alcoholic strength. There are now different proposals for wines, spirits and beer. Both sides of the House agree. We look to the Paymaster General and the Financial Secretary to put our case at ECOFIN and at the further meetings which will no doubt be necessary.
This big topic falls into four parts. Some papers deal with changes relating to excise duties, others with changes relating to value added tax and its collection, and others

with co-operation between member states, principally for the purpose of protecting the Revenue. We must not forget that those papers are important. A further set of papers deals with the collection of intra-EC trade statistics. There seems to be general acceptance in this country that that should be continued.
The discussions between the Government and our Common Market partners have been fairly co-operative. There have been no histrionics about these matters or the kind that occurred recently about a single currency. There has been no Minister shouting, "No, no, no," from the Dispatch Box about these proposals. Yet the proposals were clearly unacceptable to this country some years ago. There has been co-operation and they have been changed. The system for VAT will not be based on an origin system. There will be a transition period, and a destination system of taxation will be available until 1996.
That can be compared with the difficulties that we had when the last European Council decided that stage 2 of the Delors plan should start in 1994. We must interpret these matters in a European way. If an agreement cannot be reached by then, the clock can be stopped. Whether one likes it or not, this simply means that discussions will continue until an agreement is reached. I far prefer negotiations to take place in a cool, calm and deliberate way, unlike the rather public discussions about a single currency and its effects on this country.

Mr. Dykes: What about the planning for a single market development with the deadline of 31 December 1992 and matters such as European monetary union and the proposal for the deadline for the second stage? It was apparently all right to have a deadline for the single market and to work out the details after the deadline was agreed, but not all right for EMU. Why is there a difference?

Dr. Marek: I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's point of view and I know what is behind his question, but it is not for me to answer. Perhaps he should address himself to the Minister when he replies or to those on the Government Front Bench in a subsequent debate. The hon. Gentleman has made a good point.
These matters can be dealt with co-operatively. The proposals are not all completely acceptable, but they are much better than those before us when we last debated this issue on 11 May 1988. At that time, the Opposition tabled an amendment and my view has not changed since then. The amendment stated that the House of Commons should be consulted in advance of Ministers of the Crown agreeing to taxation changes at European level. I say that on the basis not of sovereignty but of democratic accountability. The House should know in advance what Ministers propose to do about taxation. Our amendment did not find favour with the House two years ago, so we decided not to table it again because that would be an abuse of the House's time.
We have come a long way. The proposal for the 14 per cent. to 20 per cent. band rate has been replaced by a minimum rate. The lower band, in which the rates of VAT could range from 4 per cent. to 9 per cent., is to be retained, but it is now recognised that certain goods can be zero-rated. I am sure that all hon. Members welcome that and the refreshing new attitude taken by the European Commissioner, Mrs. Scrivener, to this matter. Clearly, minimum rates for VAT are all that is required. We do not


have to set a band rate for the top rate of VAT, because it is up to individual countries. If it were too high, citizens would be able to go to another Common Market country to purchase those goods at a lower rate. However, the matter is important and I am glad that the Paymaster General said that the Government are committed to zero-rating food, domestic fuel and children's clothes and footwear.
I wish that the Paymaster General would add to that list books, periodicals and newspapers, because that is an important point. The Government have had plenty of time in which to do that and as discussions are proceeding within the Council of Ministers in a co-operative manner, I should have thought that the Government could make this pledge to the British people. I will not go through the arguments for retaining zero-rating on books, periodicals and newspapers, save to say that it is important for educational and for cultural purposes.
When we have an agreement, it is also important that any zero-rating is not allowed simply as a derogation for a number of years or on sufferance. It should be clearly recognised that items such as food can and should continue to be zero-rated in this country as of right, if our Government so decide, and the Opposition would support that. Such zero-rating makes the VAT system a far more progressive taxation system and is to be welcomed.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on a point of substance which I feel that I must raise now, as well as later. Has my hon. Friend thought about the implications of a non-statement from the Government? I think that I did not hear a statement from the Treasury Bench about zero-rating on domestic fuel, on transport and on water services—the provision of clean water and the disposal of sewage. Does my hon. Friend recollect that there was some discussion on that? Is not it right for the Government to tell us distinctly at this stage—if they have not already done so—whether they contemplate that those areas of taxation will be allowable for VAT or whether they will hold out and maintain zero-rating in those areas which, so far as I am aware, have never been taxed in the United Kingdom?

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point and I should be delighted to give way if the Paymaster General wishes to intervene. If he cannot, I suggest that he consults his Prime Minister—whoever it is—next Wednesday and makes that point to him or to her. It is an important point and it would arouse great indignation in this country if some of those services——

Mr. Spearing: Any of them.

Dr. Marek: —indeed, if any of them were to be subject to VAT in the future.
It would be very much to our benefit if all food taken away from shops were to be zero-rated. At present, there are difficult distinctions between—to use a well-known example—different types of chocolate biscuit. If a biscuit has chocolate in it, it is not liable to VAT, but if it is chocolate-covered, it is liable to be rated at 15 per cent. Hon. Members must wonder whether a jaffa cake will be liable to VAT. At present, it is not liable for VAT although 50 per cent. of it is covered by chocolate because it is not a biscuit, but a cake.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Tax the top half only.

Dr. Marek: It depends which is the top half. We have a chance to introduce a new system of indirect taxation and legislation, so it is important that it should be simple and that it should cover large categories without the need for making many individual exceptions.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Is it Labour party policy that if a Labour Government ever came to power they would zero-rate those items, and how much would that cost?

Dr. Marek: I suspect that the costs are minimal for some of these matters. However, I am discussing this within the context of changing the system of indirect taxation, with which the discussions, the papers and the debate are concerned. Some of the changes may produce a revenue gain. Perhaps we should consider banding for VAT. Why should we have 15 per cent. or zero? It is a debating point—although not for this afternoon. Perhaps some items may be liable for 5 per cent., others for 15 per cent. and others for zero. All these matters form part of the whole. The general principle is that, when making these changes, we should make the system simpler—and perceived by the public to be so.

Mr. Ryder: I want to point out some facts that may be helpful to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek( and to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). The total tax raised on the items to which the hon. Gentleman referred is about £500 million a year. Zero-rating would mean the total loss of that revenue. Inclusions within a reduced rate band, to which the hon. Gentleman also referred, of between 4 per cent. and 9 per cent. would mean a loss to the Revenue of between £200 million and £350 million, so the answer to my hon. Friend is that it is the dickens of a lot of money.

Dr. Marek: The amount depends on which items the Paymaster General has included in that category. I am sure that £500 million of VAT does not currently escape on jaffa cakes. These matters are complicated and it may have been wrong of me to mention particular examples. However, no one would object if revenue was forgone in certain cases and increased in others but greater simplicity and fairness resulted. I am trying to get that point across, and I hope that the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) agrees with me on it.
There has been considerable concern in the Royal National Lifeboat Institution recently. I suggest to the Paymaster General that it would be useful for him to intervene if he has figures on this. A number of hon. Members have had letters suggesting that the European Commission is about to start imposing VAT on lifeboats. I know that the hon. Member for Gosport is interested in this matter and that, in this case, he is rightly keen to decrease revenue to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Can the Paymaster General help us on this?

Mr. Ryder: I hope that this information will be helpful to our deliberations. As the hon. Member for Wrexham may know, I have received dozens of letters from hon. Members of all parties on this issue, which concerns many people. The Government are very conscious of the valuable role played by the RNLI, and we are keen to secure the right conditions in the single market for this organisation and for other charitable bodies. The Government see no reason why the existing zero rate for charities, like other United Kingdom zero rates, should


not remain after 1992. We welcome the greater flexibility shown by the Commission in its revised approach to indirect taxation in the single market. Although the Commission is still suggesting that future zero rates should be limited in scope and subject to certain conditions, we have not accepted that. That position, which was confirmed again by the Government at the meeting of ECOFIN last December, is true of all our zero rates, not just of those of particular interest to charities.

Dr. Marek: I am grateful to the Paymaster General for that explanation. The position is much as I had hoped. There has recently been some new thinking in the European Commission and during the passage of various Finance Bills we have been able to secure concessions on matters relating to charitable work. For example, we had a good response from Europe on community halls.
Some of the documents deal with the collection of trade and VAT statistics—the latter principally to prevent fraud. Business must realise that it is in its own interests and in the interests of the Revenue that there should be as little fraud as possible. That necessarily imposes a burden on business, but those speaking on behalf of business cannot simply say that we should do away with all barriers and all burdens. That is too glib, because if we did away with too many of the burdens, fraud would increase, which would be to the detriment of business.
Clearly, the statistics collected need to be kept to a minimum. The Government have to do their job. They have to be able to forecast and to plan and manage the economy, and to do that, they need statistics. Over and above that, the collection of statistics can rightly be regarded as a burden on business.
It is vital that smaller firms should only have to fill up statistics forms once. It would be quite wrong for a small business which had to fill up a VAT form and perhaps a form to allow authorities in other member states to access a database then to have to fill up yet more forms for the Department of Trade and Industry. I do not know whether the Paymaster General has addressed himself to that question but I hope that he accepts that small businesses should have to fill up forms only once in a given period. They should not have to fill up different forms for different purposes.

Mr. Chris Butler: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is coming to this point, but it would help us to follow his argument if he explained which of the five systems that Ministers will be considering next week he thinks most closely fulfil the conditions that he has described.

Dr. Marek: I do not have direct experience of form-filling so I have to rely on expert advice, but if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me I shall be coming to that matter.
Large firms may have to supply more data when the checks and barriers to trade are moved inland from the ports of entry. That may be said to increase the burden on them but that will be more than compensated for by the lack of problems at the ports. I hope that the data required will be kept to a minimum, but they must be adequate to allow the Government to do their job and the VAT authorities to satisfy the public that fraud is being kept to a minimum.
I was reasonably reassured by what the Select Committee on European Legislation said in its paper dated 14 November, which is available in the Vote Office today. Page 2 of the document says:
Under this proposal, each Member State would hold the listings on the data base to which member states could gain access directly, but only for details of sales to them.
If we adopt the listing proposal, perhaps listings will be confined to details of sales alone and not used for anything further. That will not be enough to ensure that fraud is kept to a minimum because two companies in different member states could collaborate to perpetrate a fraudulent act without its ever being detected. Inspectors must be able to follow audit trails, as they can in this country.
The Select Committee's paper continues:
United Kingdom trade bodies who have been consulted as the negotiations progressed are not enthused by the proposed requirement for the supply of further information, but they agree that periodic aggregate sales listings would be preferable to the far more onerous proposals for detailed monthly transactions sales listings, strongly pressed earlier by some member states.
Perhaps the Financial Secretary could pursue that at ECOFIN next week. Such a new system may well be acceptable so long as it is part and parcel of fraud detection mechanism which allows audit trails to be followed in certain circumstances.
I welcome the proposal to extend the arrangements whereby VAT can be charged on the destination principle at least until 1996, although I wonder whether the eventual results of the negotiations will be satisfactory and whether the system will work. I have yet to be convinced that we should adopt a system based on the origin principle and I hope that the Government will press the Commission to justify its proposals in that regard.
Clearly, it could not do so in time for the introduction of a new system in 1992–93, and I think that it is now beginning to realise that the matter is irrelevant to the single market. On the other hand, it would be useful to have a degree of harmonisation. If the Commission badly wants to apply the principle of tax being paid at origin, it must persuade us. I have yet to be persuaded and I do not think that the Commission has gone out of its way to persuade either the Parliament or the Parliaments of the other member states.
I am very much in favour of the argument for co-operation with other member states in the exchange of information. The document produced by Customs and Excise, dated June 1990 and entitled "The Control of Intra-Community Excisable Goods after Completion of the Single Market" is useful and many of its provisions seem to have been accepted by the Commission and reproduced in the various documents before us. In some of its aspects, however, the Commission could perhaps go further. Fraudulent traders should not only be caught; they should be banned from trading again for five or 10 years or perhaps for life.
I do not necessarily agree that dutiable goods that have come out of a bonded warehouse should be allowed to go back into bond for transfer from one member state to another. We do not do that in this country, although this is not necessarily a sticking point on which the agreement will stand or fall. We should get round the problem. If dutiable goods leaving a bonded warehouse do so permanently, there will be less fraud.
I welcome the fact that the Commission has abandoned its earlier plans simply to average exise duties across the


Community and insist that the new levels are observed by each member state. That would have had serious repercussions for our policies on health and would have had a disastrous effect on the Revenue. We are talking not about £230 million but about £3 billion or £4 billion. The Commission's proposals are such that there could be quite a loss of revenue.
The Commission has stated that it will insist on a minimum duty with target duties above that minimum. The Opposition can travel along that road. Clearly, we must consider health. The problem is difficult because southern European countries which produce wine or tobacco tend to have much lower duties than northern members of the Community. Agreement or duties in that regard will be reached only after many years.
I believe that some of the minimum duties are welcome, but I have a reservation. As I understand it, under the proposals, if our ad valorem tobacco duty is higher than the target price, is that target price to be preserved? Is it to be inflation-proofed? I hope that the Paymaster General can help me on that point.
As I read the documents, any movement in the difference between what particular countries in the Community levy as duties on tobacco cannot go in any direction other than towards the target price. Would that preclude our increasing our duty to take account not only of inflation, but from keeping our duty at the same percentage in real terms—or at the same fraction—higher than the target duty on an annual basis? I am not sure what the answer to that is.
However, if that does not happen as inflation is higher in this country than in most of the other European countries, any duty that we levy that is higher than the target rate would simply disappear very quickly. That would be completely unacceptable. If the Paymaster General understands my point, and if he has read the documents, I would welcome an answer to my question. If he cannot answer me now, I hope that he will consider the matter and perhaps write to me. I hope that he will ensure that the ECOFIN Council produces an answer.
I can also be persuaded about the banding of mineral oils, but we must be careful about introducing changes which might significantly alter consumption. If the proposals are accepted, there will be an increase in diesel consumption in this country. There are health risks with diesel and I would prefer legislation in that area to be preceded by an environmental and health assessment so that legislation could back up such an assessment. I cannot see that happening at the moment.
There is an atmosphere and a feeling within Europe that we should get our policies unified and harmonised where that would help trade and an understanding between the different peoples. We could refuse to take part in such a harmonisation. For example, our Government refuse to have anything to do with the social charter. We could make ourselves extremely unpopular in Europe, as our Prime Minister has. As a result of that, anything we propose tends to be pooh-poohed immediately by our European partners simply because the British produced it. That is very regrettable. We must change that because we can and should play our part in Europe certainly on such things as a single currency and possibly on such things as the harmonisation of indirect taxation and the collection of statistics.
With regard to a single currency, if all members of the European Common Market united and said that they

would have a single currency, it is inconceivable that business and the City would allow a Conservative Government in this country to opt out, because that would be the death knell of the City and would cause enormous problems for British business. That fact needs to sink in to certain Members in this Chamber.

Mr. John D. Taylor: I had understood that the Opposition opposed a single currency. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, if the other 11 countries in the Community support a single currency, we should automatically support it as well?

Dr. Marek: The right hon. Gentleman must not trap me into saying something that I do not intend to say. I said that if 11 members united and said that they would have a single currency, and they went ahead and had one because we were obdurate and kept taking the cricket ball home and would not take part in negotiations or co-operative discussions with our Community partners, then it is inconceivable that British business and the City would allow any Government to keep Britain outside the system. That must be considered very carefully, but it does not mean that I am in favour of a single currency, willy-nilly and come what may. However, if the other 11 members of the European Community go along that road, we have a duty to do our best to see whether we can formulate proposals to enable us to partake of that system.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Leaving willy and nilly out of it, will the hon. Gentleman answer the question? Is the Labour party in favour of a single currency? He said that it should "sink in" to some people, but he said that it was something that could not be avoided. What percentage of his Labour colleagues has that fact sunk into so far? Would he agree that the figure would be about 20 per cent. if those hon. Members were to show their hands?

Dr. Marek: I was thinking more about Conservative Members. However, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is seeking to extract from me something that I do not know——

Mr. Carlile: You do not know the answer.

Dr. Marek: It is not a matter of knowing the answer—the question is hypothetical.

Mr. Carlile: You do not know the answer.

Dr. Marek: I gave the hon. and learned Gentleman time to intervene. He can intervene again if he wishes—we have plenty of time. However, his was a hypothetical question. It will be a question when negotiations are about to take place. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will read carefully tomorrow what I have said. I have outlined a perfectly acceptable position for the Labour party to take at the present time.

Mr. John Biffen: Before the lion. Gentleman leaves this fascinating subject, as he is speaking from the Opposition Front Bench with all the authority that that confers, would he say what the position would be of a Labour Government confronted with a situation in which the decision to have a European central bank was to put it under banker control rather than political control?

Dr. Marek: Again, the right hon. Gentleman is trying to get me to move forward into a hypothetical situation which in principle does not exist at present.

Mr. Alex Carlile: You are in trouble now.

Dr. Marek: Not at all—I stick by what I have said. It is on the record and I am sorry that I cannot provide amusement. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery is trying to tempt me into a discussion on the matter, but I do not intend to be tempted.
There is a world of difference between a central bank under the political control of one nation state and its Government, and a central bank that is under the political control of 12 nation states, and therefore 12 Finance Ministers. There is also a difference between a central bank modelled on the lines of the Bundesbank and a bank which is truly independent of political control. I shall not say which I prefer. We need political control of a central bank.
The difference between the Government and the Opposition is that we would enter the negotiations in a co-operative spirit, knowing that we would have a more than even chance of producing something that would be acceptable to the British people. The Government, led by the present Prime Minister, are pursuing policies which make us irrelevant to the other member states. That is the difference.

Mr. Christopher Gill: In his reply to the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), the hon. Member implied that it was possible to have political control by 12 Chancellors. Is he suggesting that as a way in which we could proceed?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I remind the House that, although the debate can go reasonably wide, if we were to develop this point, we should be getting beyond the terms of the motion.

Dr. Marek: I agree with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am glad that right hon. and hon. Members have not succeeded in what they have mischievously been trying to do.
Any changes should ensure that accurate statistics are kept and are comprehensive enough for the Government to do their job in managing the economy. They must, wherever possible, lessen the burdens on trade and keep the clients' costs to a minimum. Any changes must protect revenue. I welcome the progress that has been made so far by the European Commission, but there is more to be done. I hope that, at the ECOFIN council next week, the Minister will argue his case along those lines and will succeed, without hectoring, lecturing, huffing or puffing—I know that Treasury Ministers do not do that—in persuading our colleagues in the European Community by cogent and friendly argument.

Mr. Roger Sims: One of the directives is concerned, among other things, with the target rates for the tax on cigarettes. The House will have heard me express my views on the health hazards of smoking and I do not intend to make that speech again, but I want to express my concern at a passage in the memorandum, which says:
The proposal has significant implications for health policy, since a cut in the absolute level of duty would make cigarettes cheaper overall and because a rise in the proportion

of tax raised by an ad valorem charge would widen the span of retail prices, offering more opportunities for selling cheap products.
It is curious that we should have these proposals before us only a day after the Commission issued a paper about the adoption of the proposals amending the directive on the labelling of tobacco products. That document starts by saying:
smoking is still a major health problem; one cancer out of three in Europe is caused by smoking. In other words, cancer prevention must start with smoking prevention.
If the proposal goes through in its present form, far from deterring people from smoking by increasing the price of cigarettes—there is no doubt that price is a relevant factor—it would encourage them by reducing the price. I hope that my hon. Friend will take the point on board and that our objections to this aspect will be noted and ventilated.
Another of the documents before us deals with duties on spirits. Here, I have to declare an interest as adviser to the Scotch Whisky Association. My hon. Friend the Minister has already referred to possible proposals for the phasing out of the duty-free allowance and said that this is not an immediate matter, but it is clear that it is under consideration and could come in the fullness of time. The duty-free market is a special market and were it abolished, it would not be replaced elsewhere. All of us have experience of taking advantage of duty-free sales to purchase a product that we would not otherwise have purchased. If duty-free sales are abolished, the market is lost. For the Scotch whisky industry, if the duty-free market were to go within the Community, that would mean lost sales to the value of £40 million per annum. That is the equivalent of the loss of a complete market such as that in Germany.
Furthermore, it seems that the Commission is now moving from the original ideas of harmonisation on duty levels on alcohol products. The very effect of the proposal is to maintain discrimination between duty on spirits and the duty on wine. It does no more than maintain it, because, as an explanatory memorandum says:
The ratio between the duties on spirits and wine would increase from about 2:1"—
that is unreasonable in itself—
to about 8:1, with possible adverse consequences for UK spirits producers, both in terms of the domestic market and exports to the EC.
That discrimination of 8:1 between spirits and wines does not chime with the idea of a single market. Therefore, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to stress again that consideration should be given to proper harmonisation of the duties on alcoholic products and, ideally, that the duties should be based on the alcoholic strength of the product, regardless of its nature.

Mr. Alex Carlile: My right hon. and hon. Friends and I broadly support the view expressed by the Paymaster General about these documents. However, I wish to draw the attention of the House to a number of matters. The first relates to tax points for VAT and the matter that I raised earlier in an intervention about the title to goods. There is already a minefield in domestic law relating to the question of when title to goods passes. It is difficult to determine even where the dispute is between a United Kingdom supplier and a United Kingdom purchaser. Already, there is a great deal of case law on the


passing of title to goods where there is a transaction across international frontiers. When VAT law is harmonised, it is important that we do not face an exponentially increased minefield. It might be of great benefit to my colleagues at the commercial Bar, but I doubt whether it would be of much benefit to those traders whose interests we are trying to serve by the single market and harmonisation.
Attempts at harmonisation of the taxation regimes of the European Community and the achievement of harmony within the Community are as different, unfortunately, as my singing in the bath and the heavenly sounds of the Bach choir. On the face of it, I suppose that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) presents a slightly more hopeful prognosis for harmony, yet that is little comfort as I suppose that realistically we must regard him merely as the leadership candidate who is seen but not Hurd.
It is time that the Government, carefully and rightly avoiding slavish acceptance of all Commission suggestions, began to demonstrate a wish to make effective the concept of Europe of which the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) spoke with such eloquence on Tuesday. Unfortunately, as we have heard in the debate—I am pleased that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), having left the Chamber to have his bruised fingers bandaged, to use a cricketing analogy, has now returned to his place—it is clear that we would not obtain any greater clarity of commitment from the Labour party, which is riddled both with deeply committed anti-Europeans and pragmatists, as well as with wholesale consumers of fudge. That is as destructive a combination as one could imagine when it comes to making real progress.
In the Labour party there are three schools of thought—some committed pro-Europeans, some committed anti-Europeans like the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing)—the hon. Gentleman does not make his position unclear—and those who spend their time sitting on the fence, like the hon. Member for Wrexham. I fear that the iron may well have already entered his soul on the subject of Europe and that we shall have no greater clarity from the Opposition Front Bench between now and the result of the next general election than we have had in recent years.
It is rather like having a Government—I repeat the fashionable use of cricketing metaphors—who play 12th man in Europe, and deliberately so, and therefore rarely obtain any significant slice of action on the field. To adopt a footballing analogy, we have a Labour party which, if it were to be allotted a position in the European team, would be playing as substitute, or possibly at left-right-outside.

Mr. Spearing: I fear that the hon. and learned Gentleman was slightly inaccurate when he mentioned my position. His inaccuracy illustrates one of the problems of what is sometimes called, but mistakenly, a debate. I am not anti-European. I am a European person, but I am not in favour of the terms or the philosophy behind the treaty of Rome. There is a great deal of difference between the two positions.

Mr. Carlile: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is in his preamble, and I am sure that he will come to the motion that is before the House.

Mr. Carlile: I am, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall.
The hon. Member for Newham, South has made his position clear, as one would expect. He is opposed to the European Community.
It is nearly two decades since we accepted the introduction of value added tax, that being a key indirect tax within the European Community. It is a relatively simple tax, although it has become complicated by some fairly abstruse regulations and exceptions for certain goods and services. It is easy and cheap to collect, mainly because it is collected by the suppliers of goods and services at vast cost to themselves but not to the Government. It probably makes good sense on those grounds.
Although fraud is common, it is generally easy to detect, provided that there are enough staff available in Customs and Excise in the United Kingdom, and in equivalent departments elsewhere, to carry out the detection. I hope that we shall hear from the Paymaster General a commitment on behalf of the Government to ensure that when harmonisation takes place the Community will ensure that there is a Communitywide force of people who are employed to detect and prosecute fraud and are trained and skilled in that detection and prosecution. I pay tribute to the great skills of the staff of Customs and Excise, who have a record second to none throughout the world in the detection of fraud in the importation of goods and, in more recent times, in VAT transactions.
As part of our VAT regime, we have shown a determination that some goods and some services—those that make a major contribution of especial utility and merit—should be zero rated. In the proposals produced by Commissioner Scrivener in May, zero-rating would remain permissible for clearly defined social reasons for the benefit of the consumer. However, that acceptance is couched in somewhat grudging terms. It is important, therefore, that the Government make it clear that we are talking about harmonisation rather than unison and that we shall retain zero rating for appropriate areas of goods and services which are part of commercial life.

That recognition of the basis of zero rating, albeit for a limited range of goods and services, shows that, grudgingly on the Commission's part, there is growing an admirable sense of reality and flexibility—of which we should make the most.
I shall direct my remarks on zero rating to two subjects that have been mentioned already. The first subject is charities. It is important to remember that charities in the United Kingdom are not replicated in the same form anywhere else in the Community. British charities are a unique species. For the most part, they operate differently from charities in other parts of the Community. They are much more independent of government. They are often extremely small, and fulfil functions that are undertaken as a matter of course by local government elsewhere.
An obvious example is the network of entirely independent charitable village halls which exist throughout my geographically large constituency and those of the two Shropshire Members whom I see in their places, who I know strongly support the charitable status of village halls within their constituencies and the zero rating of goods and services provided to and by those halls, especially the hiring of the halls. The halls are the


backbone of village life in Wales, and in Shropshire, too. They are but one example of the many small charitable institutions in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to add Hampshire to his list?

Mr. Carlile: I am more than happy to do that, although I am less familiar with Hampshire than Shropshire as I have to drive through Shropshire on my way home, the train services being what they are.
Some extremely large charities also benefit from zero rating. The Royal National Lifeboat Institution has already been mentioned. It could be affected in two ways by the removal of zero rating. The first, which was mentioned earlier, is in its purchase of lifeboats. The second relates to the huge quantity of goods sold by that institution and by many similar charities. We can all think of examples immediately. The National Children's Home is one. Such charities sell vast quantities of goods at sales of work and VATing those goods would remove the illegitimate advantage which, most right hon. and hon. Members agree, they should maintain over the ordinary high street retail sector.

Mr. Viggers: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. He enables me by making an intervention to avoid making a speech. As vice-president of the RNLI, I endorse everything that he said. He will be aware of early-day motion 27 which was signed by 61 Members across the board. When the Government engage in negotiations, they will perhaps win some points and have to make concessions on others. Does he agree that one area in which they should not make concessions is zero-rating of VAT for the RNLI?

Mr. Carlile: The House appreciates the work that the hon. Gentleman puts into the RNLI. I entirely agree with him and with the early-day motion, which I signed today. The RNLI fulfils a role which is unique in Europe and perhaps in the world. It is important that its position should be maintained.
Another aspect of zero rating is sometimes referred to as "books, newspapers and periodicals." I prefer to describe it as "products related to literacy." Britain's level of illiteracy and reading difficulties is still between 6 and 10 per cent. Books, newspapers and journals, despite the ever-present television screen, are the most important source of informed knowledge. Local newspapers in particular play a crucial role, especially in rural areas.
If I may be allowed to be parochial for a moment, Montgomeryshire's County Times Express and Gazette which appears on Friday afternoon each week, carries an enormous range of information which is simply not available elsewhere. We do not have a local radio station in mid-Wales which carries a notice board. My constituency is about 900 square miles so it is impossible to tell people what is going on in the district at some public point or by some form of public annunciation system.
Such local newspapers—in the private sector, of course—serve a crucial role, which would be severely wounded by the introduction of VAT. Furthermore, Wales is a bilingual country. Books and periodicals in the Welsh language serve as a crucial bridge between the English-speaking Welsh and the Welsh-speaking Welsh.

They help to make Wales a country in which everyone can understand everyone else. Therefore, they fulfil an essential and useful function.
Minority languages have been the subject of much discussion in the European Community. The existence of a strong national language in Wales is a factor which should be put into the scales when discussions take place about the VATability of books, newspapers and periodicals—in other words, the VATability of literacy.
We support the notion and the aims of harmonisation, as exemplified by the documents before the House. We should bear in mind that in my party we aim for harmony, not unison or uniformity. Harmony can be heard in many forms, from Tallis's great six-choir, 36-part choral work, to a barber shop quartet—which is probably the most that we could ever achieve in the House. But harmony is different from expecting everyone to say the same, adopt the same rules and provide exactly the same tax for every aspect of life.
Whether one uses the term federalism or retention of sovereignty—the two are often difficult to distinguish—it is important that harmonisation means that local circumstances, traditions and needs, such as those of the RNLI, which is peculiar to the United Kingdom because we are a group of islands, should be taken fully into account. Therefore, the reason why we have chosen to zero-rate particular goods and services is an essential inclusion in any negotiations.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: In a desire for virtue and brevity, I shall be brief, partly because what my hon. Friend the Minister said was encouraging and to a great extent he covered in spirit the essential points that I wanted to make. I wish to refer to the VAT controls on inter-Community trade post-1992. I declare an interest which is duly recorded. I am involved in trading companies which would be affected by legislation on this matter.
I have a real and growing anxiety, voiced recently by the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors and the Union des Industries de la Communaute Europeene, the Communitywide organisation, about the choice between the five systems. The matter is on the agenda for 19 November. I hope that I understood my hon. Friend the Minister correctly when he said that he did not anticipate that a final decision would be made then.
I am extremely pleased to hear that. There are grounds for anxiety that a decision might be rushed into prematurely in favour of system 3, which appears to be a front runner at present. I do not need to go into the detailed arguments. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that there are fears that the system could involve excessive cost, excessive flow of information, not all of which is relevant to the tasks that it seeks to achieve and that the form of the information and the way in which it is compiled and used could give rise to mis-matches. There are serious worries that system three is defective.
I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Minister refer to his acceptance of audit-based controls. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) likewise accepted that principle. It is the guiding principle behind system five. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will take to heart the worries about system three. Let us hope that there will


be time for consultation before a decision is made. In my judgment, that decision should not be in favour of the third system.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I intervened earlier in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) to remark on the number of documents before the House today. I must confess that I came into the Chamber only to listen and perhaps to clarify some of the complex matters before us. My Committee has had the opportunity of reporting on them, but in view of what has been said—or rather, what has not been said—I sought to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The debate is far more important than the attendance in the House today suggests. Indeed, it is inversely important. I call it "a debate" but in effect we are having three debates in one—I should be glad if the Paymaster General would correct any of these hazards—in that we are debating the future of British excise on alcohol, tobacco, and fuel oils, particularly for motor cars. A debate on a specific proposal relating to any of those topics could fill the Chamber. We are having a debate on VAT and on whether we should retain or whether we can retain our zero-rating. Most hon. Members who have spoken have already referred to that. Again, a specific debate on that aspect would fill the Chamber. We are also debating the arrangements within the European Community for future interstate arrangements for VAT and the question of trading statistics. If frontiers disappear, exports and imports must also disappear. That, too, is a fairly big topic, especially as we are not doing too well in that regard.
All those matters are contained in no fewer than 37 documents—supplied through the efficiency of the Deliverer of the Vote, who is rarely mentioned in this place, but to whom I pay tribute—which have a bearing on no fewer than 14 documents arising from the Commission itself.
We are often told by the media and by our colleagues about the terrible, boring debates which take place late at night after 10.30 pm and which no hon. Member ever attends. People often ask, "Why can we not have these important debates earlier in the afternoon?" Well, today we have just such a debate on the topics that I have listed. A colleague has suggested that the absence of hon. Members from the Chamber is due to the fact that half the House is away canvassing and the other half laughing. Be that as it may, I find this state of affairs seriously ironic. The important and possibly epoch-making speech that we heard in the Chamber only two days ago was about these very matters—about style, approach and fundamentals.
I fear that in two or three years, when the results of some of these proposals are known, there may be debates in the House in which there is retribution, wringing of hands, mystification and possibly resignations. Some hon. Member will ask, "How did all this happen?" Another will reply, "It was debated on the Thursday of the week when the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) made his speech."
We have been here before—in the late 1970s. I remember a debate conducted, I believe, by my then right hon. Friend Joel Barnett, now Lord Barnett, in which the then hon. Member for Southampton, Test and myself pressed him on certain matters and he, in his efficient way,

was dodging a bit. Ten years later, VAT was imposed on housing repairs. Nobody could understand why the Chancellor of the Exchequer did what he did. Nobody told the House that the Chancellor had received a letter from the Commission—we got that out of him later in Committee. We then had VAT on glasses, with a court order and statements, and then on commercial building and many civil engineering constructions. All those things arose as a result of a debate held 10 years earlier.
The implementation of the proposals that we are considering in this debate is rather closer than that. As I understand it, the proposers hope that the proposals will come into effect as soon as possible, with a transitional period until the end of 1992 and something more permanent in 1993 and thereafter. Although I fancy that there will be a bit of delay, even if the proposals are implemented in the Budget of 1993, that is close enough.
As I have said, the debate is of much greater importance than many colleagues have yet understood. I do not blame them for that entirely because most things about the Community are wrapped in mystery either until much later or until those who have the privilege of having someone to help them understand these things try to explain what they are all about. As Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, I have that obligation this afternoon. I shall therefore do something which may be very boring, but which is necessary. I shall read into the record a list of the reports of the Select Committee on European Legislation and where they may be found so that those who read the report of this debate will at least be able to see something of the importance of what is going on and can read the documents.
Our first report bearing on this debate was the 11th report of the 1989–90 Session, HC II—xi, in which we dealt with exise duty rates and EEC documents 9775/89, 9776/89, 9777/89 and 9778/89. Our second report was the 31st report of the Session, HC II—xxxi, on indirect taxes (administrative co-operation), dealing with EEC document 6642/90, and that on value added tax, 6641/90. We then considered the 32nd report, on indirect taxes and harmonisation, 6762/89, and then an extract from the 33rd report of the last Session, relating to HM Customs and Excise, and COM(90) 430, 431, 432, 433 and 434. As late as yesterday afternoon, we considered the report on EEC document 6641/90, relating to Customs and Excise and one from the Central Statistical Office, 8801/90.
That is the comprehensive list of the documents relating to the motion. I understand that a representative of the Treasury will be discussing them in Brussels on Monday. I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong about any of this, because it is difficult even for the Select Committee to keep up with the range of matters happening yonder. I understand that it is hoped that some agreement will be reached in the new year, perhaps before Easter——

Mr. Ryder: indicated assent.

Mr. Spearing: I see the Minister nodding. Whether the House will have a further opportunity to discuss these matters is very much open to question. Indeed, I believe that according to the revised motion which was passed following the last speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Surry, East as Leader of the House, we are now having that debate.

Mr. Ryder: indicated assent.——

Mr. Spearing: I see the Minister nodding again. I make no apology for my more measured tone when I say that that emphasises the importance of this occasion.
I confess to the views to which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has drawn the attention of the House. I shall now depart from an entirely objective stance and select matters which I believe are accurate and correct but which I know that some hon. Members will say reflect my own position, which is well known. I therefore take off my Chairman's hat and put on that of the hon. Member for Newham, South.
I believe that these proposals replace those of Lord Cockfield—a name from the past. In the Cockfield report, 290-odd regulations and draft directives created the so-called "1992 single market". We are nearing the completion of that list as its provisions are now coming into force—we do not have to wait for any big bang. The proposals relating to VAT and excise duty were particularly contentious. We debated them some time ago and I believe that it is true to say that they did not find acceptance throughout the Community for one reason or another, which is understandable because Lord Cockfield was probably being too ambitious.
I am no expert in this matter, but I appreciate that trying to reconcile the VAT structures of Ireland, Denmark and Italy, for example, stretches the imagination and political ingenuity of anyone concerned. The deep interests within each of those countries, their political structures, and the assumptions of their populations are difficult to reconcile—let alone those of the United Kingdom and the attitudes to taxation which are habitually and justifiably held by our friends in France and Germany. All that is being done to the great god of the benefits of harmonisation, although I am not sure that they have been agreed or even estimated.
The new VAT proposals would create two bands. I will first read into the record the Government's attitude, although the Paymaster-General has already made it clear. The Explanatory Memorandum relating to document 6762 of 1989, signed by the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, states on page 4:
The move away from both the fixed band for the standard rate of VAT and fixed rates for excise is welcome, as is the Commission's acceptance that certain zero rates may be retained on social grounds, though the list of items to be included is not indicated. But the Commission's long-term aim remains the centrally imposed approximation of indirect tax rates, which the United Kingdom Government continues to believe to be unnecessary and inappropriate.
That is a clear statement, not shouted or discourteous. The key is that the list of items affected is not indicated, and nor are the precise figures, although I make no complaint about that as a technique.
When VAT was first introduced and was subsequently doubled, there were many great debates. We are now considering an adjustment to our 15 per cent. standard rate, and ingenious proposals for what amounts to a double band. I am not sure whether that arrangement is meant to be transitional or to operate after 1993, but I do not suppose that that makes such difference, because the all-important timing has yet to be decided.
There is to be a standard rate somewhat above 9 per cent., but the minimum amount above 9 per cent. has yet to be decided. It could be 12, 13 or 14 per cent. Each country will be allowed to impose a higher rate if it suits

its convenience and accords with certain desiderata. Commission document No. 6762/89, published on 22 May 1989, states in paragraph 8:
An alternative to the rate band would be to replace it with a minimum rate applicable from 1 January 1993 without any upper limit being set for Member States' needs in so far as the standard rate is concerned. Each Member State would choose a rate at least equal to the minimum rate, having regard not only to the national budgetary implications of its choice but also to the 'competitive pressure' that would stem from the rates chosen by neighbouring Member States or by the Member States which were its main trading partners.
That is the suggested criterion for the standard rate, which would apply to almost everything.
There is a proposal also for a reduced rate. Paragraph 10 of the same document states:
The Commission considers that the proposed band (4–9 per cent.) best meets the needs of the situation and that the essential task is to agree on the products to be taxed at the reduced rate relative to those chargeable at the standard rate. For the Commission, it is indispensible to reach agreement from the outset of the prepatory phase on the fact that a common structure based on two rates is the necessary condition for attaining a sufficient degree of alignment.
Some may consider that proposal a little fuzzy, but we can see what the Commission is driving at. I understand that that is the document on which negotiations are to take place. Some may welcome the ability to reduce VAT on certain commodities or services, but I reckon that the reduced rate will be fairly limited. It is more likely that certain goods which are currently zero-rated will be lifted into the 4 per cent. to 9 per cent. tax band, with a minimum of 4 per cent.
That brings me to the vexed question of zero-rated commodities. It is notable that hon. Members who have spoken so far who might otherwise be in favour of the procrustean harmonisation thrust upon us by the treaty of Rome pointed out the need to retain zero rating, which was the subject of my earlier intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), in respect of the Government's intentions.
Perhaps we should get that issue out of the way immediately. The Prime Minister said something about it at the time of the last general election. I do not know whether she was supported in her view then by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) or by the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East, but I suspect that she was. I refer to the question of children's shoes, and so on. But what about transport, domestic fuel, water supply and disposal, books, magazines and newspapers, referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), and with whose remarks I wholly agree.
I understand the Prime Minister's position and her resentment on occasions. At the time of the general election, neither she nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer could give an undertaking—any more than they can now—that books, magazines and newspapers would never be taxed. That situation already confronts the Government and the public. I referred earlier to the relative obscurity of debates on technical documents having long numbers. I make no apology for commenting now that there does not appear to be for this debate any representative from this country's great newspapers in the Press Gallery at a time when we are debating whether or not there should be a tax imposed on this country's newspapers in the future. Important matters are debated in the House without the public realising their importance. If the Minister wishes to


intervene at this point, I shall certainly give way. If not, I will describe the Commission's general views on zero rating.
Zero rating was something of a derogation in any case because there is a big difference between exemption and zero rating. We achieved exemption for certain goods through the good wheeze of zero rating. In 1970 or 1971, before we even joined the EEC, the House had a great debate on the subject of VAT on children's shoes. I remember that my noble Friend Lord Barnett moved an amendment to exempt them, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) voted against and there was a tremendous row.
We may be able to retain that exemption, but what about other commodities? Page 5 of the 22 May letter states:
Since there is a twofold need to reduce the present coverage of zero-rating"—
there we are, they are talking of reductions—
and to take account of the social role assigned to VAT in some Member States, a relaxation of the Commission's position could be envisaged provided a number of conditions were met.
It would be necessary, in the framework of a final compromise, to authorise Member States who so wish, to maintain zero-rating for a very limited number of products currently subject to the reduced rates, provided this did not pose any risks of distortion of competition for the other Member States.
That is a big proviso and it means that zero rating in one state and the standard rate in the neighbouring state would be regarded as a distortion of trade under the relevant article of the treaty, and people could be taken to the European Court as a result.
Even if we want zero rating on some commodities, it might be difficult. For example, if water is free of VAT in one country, production costs would undoubtedly be lowered for certain products, and that could result in court proceedings.
The section in the document on excise is specific in meaning but obscure in its language. When Lord Cockfield produced the proposals on harmonisation of excise, great attention was paid to changes in alcohol excise duty. The Paymaster General may correct me if I am wrong, but there were staggering reductions in the duty on certain alcoholic drinks, favouring products with a high alcohol content—such as spirits. Beer came off least well.
There were great reductions which put down the cost of alcohol remarkably—by 30 per cent. in some instances—because our excise duty had to be reduced considerably to harmonise with the rest of the European Community. That was one of the reasons why the Cockfield proposals were withdrawn. I understand that the Treasury stood to lose between £3 billion and £4 billion because of the reductions in alcohol duty. I give those figures from memory—the Paymaster General can correct me and perhaps give his estimate of the range of revenue loss to the Treasury under the present proposals.
I am not as worried as other hon. Members may be about the loss of taxation. Taxation of alcohol has been a part of social policy in this country, whether one likes it or not. I mentioned that fact to an EC official, and he told me that social policy comes under another article of the treaty of Rome—that is the way some people view these issues.
I shall read the letter of the proposal and then try to interpret it. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong. Paragraph 23 states:

The Commission will propose that differentiated minimum rates, which would vary according to the principal products, should be compulsory from the end of the transitional period, i.e. from 1 January 1993.
In fixing the minimum rates, particular attention will be paid to countries with low excises so as to ensure that the effort they have to make remains reasonable. The solution reached cannot take the form of frontier controls.
The existence of these minimum rates would not prevent those Member States which apply the highest duties on such products from progressively aligning their duties on the long-term reference values adopted for each category of product.
That is not very clear.
I gather that the Commission is to put long-term reference values on excise on all types of alcoholic liquor. Countries with lower rates at present—especially the Mediterranean countries—can gradually raise rates to that value, and countries with rates well above, such as United Kingdom, can gradually reduce them until, after a period of time, they are more or less the same. In the meantime, we shall have to put up with whatever frontier disparities may exist. We shall have to lump it for the time being.
That is the Commission's proposal, and it is radical. I am not sure whether the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery or his constituents would approve,but it is an ingenious bureaucratic and administrative solution to what would otherwise be a difficult problem. I have tried to explain the proposal in ordinary language and I invite the Paymaster General to correct me if I am wrong.
If one eliminates frontiers, one eliminates exports and imports and therefore trade statistics. In a document relating to the exchange rate mechanism, Lord Jay said that a country with a persistent structural trade deficit is turned into a depressed area by the ERM. Scotland and Northern Ireland are not depressed in human terms, but those and some of our other regions could be described as depressed areas. We do not deal with their imports and exports. Lord Jay suggests that the entire country will be turned into a depressed area by the ERM. Does the Paymaster General envisage a period after 1993 when trade statistics will disappear? If not, what trade statistics shall we have? Is he confident that their bases will be correct?
Finally, I wish to focus attention on excise duty on energy, especially on fuels. One cannot listen to the radio or watch television without hearing comments or discussion on the effects of carbon dioxide on the ozone layer. The Prime Minister says that we must have world solutions. Others say that we need international action and that we must get moving. If that is to happen, the impact of excise duties imposed by the EC, and variations on duties which will affect the relationship between one hydrocarbon and another, will have to be considered irrespective of whether duties are harmonised.
Fuel prices cannot be market-oriented if we are to minimise carbon dioxide emissions caused by combustion in energy production. If we are seriously to tackle this problem, we cannot be market-led. In this case the treaty of Rome—in terms of market competition—will have to go out of the window. It would be for the Commission to act in a non-market way if it wished to protect the ozone layer.
I have made a longer contribution to the debate than some might wish and a longer contribution than I expected to make when I entered the Chamber. I did so because I believed that, unless I did so, it would be extremely difficult for anyone reading Hansardto understand what the 37


documents meant. In a normal United Kingdom Budget, each would be the subject of a major debate on the Finance Bill. I shall be glad if the Paymaster General will correct any false impression or false facts that I may have given to the House.

Mr. John Biffen: The Paymaster General has sat through the debate with characteristic courtesy and stamina. My remarks will not detain him for much longer.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred to the signficance of the debate and to the relations of the House with the Executive and the wider law-making authorities of the Community. We are still unfamiliar with how to use what influence we have. It is very much a question of influence rather than of a formal mandate.
When my hon. Friend goes to Brussels on Monday, what will be the reaction of the House? He will go with the good wishes of us all. The nuances of the debate and the tone of voice are known to him and will be assessed by him. That is all. There will be no formal vote. No Division bells will ring. He cannot even turn to his European ministerial colleagues and say, "Give me a break. You've no idea what a rough time I've had with the hon. Member: for Wrexham. Don't think that the Opposition are a soft-touch alternative."
My hon. Friend knows that the best way for us to assist him is to say that we recognise that he will not have an easy task and that his job is not just to agree to any compromise that is reached. He knows that he must express the earnest anxieties of all parts of the House. To some extent, domestic political loyalties merge in a common national attitude. The problem has been made no easier in the recent past. An attempt is being made to shoehorn Britain's relationship with the Community into the unnatural fit of domestic party politics.
I know that the hon. Member for Newham, South and I share a great deal more than we share with our colleagues. It has never been easy to fit the Community debate into the niceties of Westminster politics. That does not mean that Westminster has no real responsibility, through the Minister, to make its views known on a range of subjects, even when they seem to be technical. I fully agree with the hon. Member for Newham, South that it is the volume of documents that will almost certainly convince every research assistant that they are hardly worth dealing with when it comes to the minutiae of VAT arrangements planned for the far distant future. That, however, is not so.
If, for example, one takes the VAT rates that in the past have convulsed the House, nothing will be decided on Monday. It will be just one more canter around an almost endless circuit, but sooner or later we shall have to reach a decision. What is so unsatisfactory is that we shall move gradually from the inconceivable to the absolutely unavoidable. "Like it or not" is the most chilling phrase that can be used in EC debates.
Although this is a thinly attended House, it has to be said that, unless there is a conscious determination to give up our traditions and our authority, we shall proceed not

by means of further abdication but by means of filling out our responsibilities and the opportunities for influencing decision taking in the Community.
I came to speak about statistics. I did not imagine that the debate would turn to constitutional matters, but that happened when the hon. Member for Newham, South spoke. He has done a great service to the House. I did not think that the debate would be a means of dealing with the more mundane issue of the single currency, which was the subject of a good-natured exchange between the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and myself. The Minister is in a classic dilemma over the statistics: to what extent do we go for comprehension and to what extent are we deterred by the cost? The Minister has to solve that dilemma.
I agree completely with my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). I hope that full account will be taken of what he said. I am grateful to the Institute of Directors for having provided me with a brief. Members of Parliament are heavily dependent on outside assistance when assessing these issues. I do not want to be told by the Confederation of British Industry that the House failed its industrial sector, particularly as I have yet to receive any communication from the CBI on the issue. When the Minister makes his contribution and moves towards a common position on Monday, I hope that he will take account of the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, which I do no more than echo.
My final point links up with what was said by the hon. Member for Newham, South. I should prefer an almost unintended benefit to emerge from this exercise. The Treasury is a most admirable institution, but I have some unease about the reliability of its trade statistics. That unease is widely shared. I realise that Government policy is to some extent controversial, but not even Government policy could have produced such a massive current trade deficit without any convincing offset in the form of an explicable current capital surplus
This is an opportunity to see how our statistics can be implemented with a degree of cost-effectiveness. I hope that the Minister will not allow his gaze to be blinkered by merely European horizons and that we shall emerge from the process with a better grasp of our trade statistics. Then, for once, the exercise will produce a modest dividend for the greater national good. In that spirit, I send my very good wishes to the Minister and wish him well in Brussels on Monday next. Whatever may be the nature of the present acrimony over the United Kingdom's future relationships with the European Community, on this issue my hon. Friend can speak for the whole House.

Mr. Ryder: It feels as though I have consumed a mammoth meal during the last two hours. I have eaten about 15 courses. Now my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), with his characteristic fluency, has presented me with the bill. On his final point about statistics, I am sure that he knows that efforts are being made to improve their accuracy. Recently, the Central Statistical Office moved its home.
Without going too far on this public occasion, may I assure my right hon. Friend that his reservations and misgivings, even criticism, of the way in which our statistics are produced are shared by others, some of whom are close to Government. I am grateful to him, therefore,


for underlining the point. He was right to do so. Without accurate statistics, the Government's entire monetary policy could be seriously affected. If, according to the statistics, our deficits are larger than they are in reality, any Chancellor has to take account of the statistics rather than of his own instincts.
I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North in congratulating the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on the assiduous way in which he always tackles these debates and reads all the documents. I share my right hon. Friend's opinion that these debates are not as well attended as they should be and it is a benefit to us today that we have been able to take part in a debate in so-called prime time. On most occasions, these debates take place for an hour and a half after 10 o'clock. I hope—I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North, as a former distinguished Leader of the House will share this view—that the new system of monitoring European legislation upstairs in the new Committees will be a success. I have every hope that it will be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) has given me his apologies. He had to leave to attend a meeting. He raised a number of points, including one connected with his representation of the whisky industry. I assure him that I have already met representatives of the whisky industry through the Scotch Whisky Association and am due to meet them again in two weeks. I am fully conscious of the reservations they hold about the extent to which the future of duty-free allowances may be affected by decisions taken in Europe.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst was also concerned about the unitary taxation of alcoholic strength. It is true that the current duty structure is largely a result of historical developments. Governments have set out to collect revenue on various drinks rather than on alcohol as such. However, no Government have ever accepted that relative alcoholic strength should be the sole determining factor for setting duty rates, and there is no reason why it should be. Just as costs and market conditions vary across different sectors of the drinks market, so the levels of duty which each sector can bear will be different.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst was also concerned about the Government's public health objectives and the effect of allowing individuals to satisfy their personal demand for tobacco. As my hon. Friend knows, fiscal instruments are only one of a range of measures at the disposal of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to influence the consumption of such products. The Government are particularly aware that there is a fine balance to be struck between allowing a citizen the freedom of choice to consume as he wishes and the efforts to prevent the undesirable social consequences that excessive consumption may cause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst was also concerned about unfair tax discrimination against spirits. The Government have not accepted the need for such a system. Nevertheless, it is our objective to try to ensure maximum flexibility in any agreed Community frame-work. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor, together with the House, will retain full freedom to set duty rates at levels which are appropriate and necessary for the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) rightly underlined the importance of a point made during an

intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). As the hon. Member for Wrexham knows, British sherry usually pays duty at the same rate as table wine. It is the rate that applies to all wines up to 15 per cent. alcohol. The Commission has proposed that the dividing line for the higher wines rate should be 13 per cent. alcohol. That is not acceptable to the Government, as British sherry would fall into a higher rate duty category than at present. I repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East—that the British Government will continue to represent the interests of British sherry in Brussels.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North reflected the views of the Institute of Directors and the Confederation of British Industry. I assure them that officials from Customs and Excise have had meetings with the various people most concerned with the issue, including the Institute of Directors and the CBI. Indeed, a meeting with the CBI took place only this morning. My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North is right to say that we have a dilemma because two important considerations need to be weighed. We want to ensure that businesses obtain as much benefit as possible from the creation of the single market. That means keeping the burdens on them as small as possible.
On the other hand, we recognise that the end of fiscal frontiers creates new opportunities for fraud and consequent revenue losses. If we and other member states fail to have adequate control systems, revenue losses will simply mean that honest taxpayers will end up paying more. Therefore, as my right hon. Friend underlined, there is a difficult balance to be struck, but we are determined to achieve a balance that is right for British businesses and the British taxpayer. I hope that the attitude that we adopt at ECOFIN on Monday and at subsequent negotiations will fulfil the objectives set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke.
In an intervention, I set out the Government's position on the RNLI. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) has sat through much of the debate and I should like to join others in paying tribute to the work that he has done on behalf of the RNLI.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) asked about the law on transfer of title. He is right that we have an agreement in principle as being that on invoice or payment. Detailed legislation has yet to be considered, but it will be considered during the next few months.
The hon. Member for Wrexham raised a number of points. He was concerned about whether all the returns for small businesses will be on the same document. For statistical purposes, the Commission problems would simply require the information to be provided on the normal VAT return. The hon. Gentleman also highlighted possible difficulties on the origin system after 1996. I think that he will appreciate that the Government are opposed to an automatic switch to an origin system. That view is supported by most member states. We are content to agree that the system should be reviewed in 1996 but without commitment to any change. Of course, the unanimity requirement protects the Government's position now and subsequently.
The hon. Member for Wrexham identified the need for audit trails to counter fraud between member states. I


agree with his judgment, and that is why we have been strongly pressing this approach at official and ministerial level. We have achieved some success.
The hon. Member for Wrexham was one of several hon. Members to raise the issue of zero rates. The Government's position has been set out in numerous occasions. The hon. Member for Wrexham referred to the possible zero rating of chocolate biscuits. He may have received the good briefing that the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance sent hon. Members. If we tried to add to existing zero rates, we would place ourselves in a difficult position, because arguing for additional rates is more likely to create opposition to our existing zero rates and make our negotiating position rather more difficult.

Dr. Marek: I have certainly received no briefing. I intended to convey the principle that any change to the taxation system should simplify it as much as possible. When taxation was introduced, we held discussions upstairs, certainly on biscuits. I suggested that the system could be simplified or made more transparent.

Mr. Ryder: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but following an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport I pointed out that large sums of money are involved—rather larger than many hon. Members imagine.
As the hon. Member for Newham, South knows, the sixth directive, which was adopted by the Labour Government in 1977, does not permit the adoption of new zero rates, although I understand that the hon. Member for Wrexham may have been alluding to the possibility of a banded system. In the next few months, no doubt, we shall discover whether the Labour party favours banded rates.
The hon. Member for Wrexham inquired whether unanimity is required for decisions on statistics. The answer is that only a majority decision is necessary.
The hon. Member for Wrexham and my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North were concerned about aspects of the statistics proposals, particularly how they will affect intra-EEC trade statistics after 1992. This data is necessary for the measurement of gross national product and for macro-economic management. The Government will remain responsible for their own macro-economic management after 1992, so it is vital to continue to collect comprehensive trade data. Estimates of GNP must be as reliable as possible because a substantial part of the Community budget contribution is based on it. Those estimates will be important in monitoring the effect on the United Kingdom economy of the completion of the single market, and they will continue to provide an essential tool for many United Kingdom businesses competing in the new single market.
The hon. Member for Wrexham queried the target rates for excise. Under the Commission's proposals for the approximation of excise duty rates, member states will be required to apply a minimum rate from 1 January 1993, and those below the target rates will be required to move towards them afterwards. For member states whose rates are already above the target rates, the proposals would impose a standstill. The proposal provides for a review of target rates every two years, but the details under which

the review would be carried out have yet to be decided. We remain opposed to that and to any proposal for centrally imposed tax approximation that is not necessary for the completion of the single market.

Dr. Marek: The Minister said that the proposals would impose a standstill on rates levied by a member state. Does he mean a standstill in real terms, in cash terms or as a fraction of the rates over the target rate? It is not clear which possibility the Commission has in mind. I hope that it is not a standstill in cash terms, which would be completely unacceptable.

Mr. Ryder: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly legitimate point. I do not have a an answer readily to hand, and if I may I shall write to him.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and others identified the risks of fraud in the Community following the proposals that will be introduced on 1 January 1992. Primarily, anti-fraud control will use existing audit-based techniques, centred on commercial documentation and traders' records. Our domestic VAT control system is based on audit-type controls of traders' normal commercial and accounting records, on risk assessment and on a low level of random checks. Our experience of this method of control gives us confidence that such a system would effectively control fraud after 1992. In 1989–90, control visits by Customs and Excise yielded more than £1 billion in additional tax revenue. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery was kind enough to refer to the success of Customs and Excise, and his generous remarks will be much appreciated by those who work for it.
The hon. Members for Newham, South and for Wrexham were worried about whether the Government would change their policy on zero rates. I have already alluded to the fact that we have no intention of doing so, but for the purpose of this debate I shall reaffirm our position. We have made specific pledges to the electorate to retain zero rating on food, domestic fuel, power, children's clothes and footwear, all of which were referred to by the hon. Member for Newham, South. We neither wish nor intend to go back on any of those pledges.
Apart from those specific pledges, which were made in exceptional circumstances—the hon. Member for Newham, South reminded us of the general election—no specific pledges have been made that would restrict the freedom of action of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It has been the practice of successive Governments not to limit the freedom of the Chancellor in such matters.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery emphasised his personal interest in charities. I think that he was asking whether we can give a commitment to a zero rating system for charities, and several hon. Members have tried in the past to persuade us to do that. We are anxious to secure the right conditions for charities to flourish in the single market, but we are concerned to defend all existing rates, not just those of benefit to charities.
As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery knows, charities benefit not only from VAT reliefs on some of their more specialised purchases but from general zero rating of most food, new construction and fuel and power supply for their non-business activities. The Government have made several changes in the taxation of charities in recent years, which must have been helpful to


them. The charitable organisations with which I come into contact are only too happy to recognise that we have come a long way during the past few years, and it would greatly surprise me if we did not make further progress during the next decade.
The hon. Member for Newham, South asked me about revenue loss on proposed target rates for alcohol. The estimated loss, according to Customs and Excise, is £2,830 million; he was right in his assessment. He is also right to say that the overall cost of the excise proposals is £3,165 million.
The hon. Gentleman was also concerned that the Commission had proposed to reduce the number of zero-rated items subject to conditions. He mentioned that not only during his speech but in an intervention, suggesting that a distortion of competition would result. He quoted the Commission's proposal accurately, but the Government do not accept it. However, it was an advance on the previous proposals, which did not accept the retention of any zero rates. On a number of occasions the Government have made it clear—in the House and, most notably, in Brussels—that they are not prepared to accept a loss of ability to zero rate.
This has been a very helpful debate in the lead-up to next Monday's ECOFIN. It has been a longer debate than usual; we have been here for two and a half hours instead of the one and a half hours that we are usually given to discuss such issues after 10 pm.
I end as I began, by agreeing with my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North and the hon. Member for Newham, South that, whenever possible, important issues of this nature should be raised in the House so that hon. Members have an opportunity of airing their views, however technical the proposals are supposed to be. I reiterate my sincere hope that the new system developed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) will assist us, making our deliberations far more efficient in matters European than they have been in the past.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 6762/89 on approximation of indirect taxes, 9775/89 on excise duty rates, 9776/89 on taxes on cigarettes and manufactured tobacco, 9777/89 on excise duties on mineral oils, 9778/89 on excise duties on alcoholic beverages, 6641/90 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by H M Customs and Excise on 12th November 1990 on supplementing the common system of value-added tax, 6642/90 on administrative co-operation in the field of indirect taxation, 6725/90 and 8801/90 on statistics relating to trading of goods between Member States, COM(90) 430 on the general excise regime, COM(90) 431 on general arrangements for the movement of products subject to excise duty, COM(90) 432 on harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcoholic beverages, COM(90) 433 on taxes other than turnover taxes levied on manufactured tobacco and COM(90) 434 on structures of excise duties on mineral oils; and supports the Government's view that the technical proposals can form the basis of a single market without fiscal frontiers that is effective against fraud and provides the statistics needed by Government to control its economic policies while minimising the burdens on business, particularly for the smaller traders; and recognises the need for early progress on these proposals, separate from those on indirect tax rates on which decisions need not be reached before 31st December 1991.

Fisheries and Aquaculture

The Parliamentary Secretary of State to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8317/90 on technical measures for the conservation of fishing resources and 8240/90 on measures to improve and adapt structures in the fisheries and aquaculture sector; and supports the Government's view that changes in existing technical conservation measures are needed to improve the conservation of fish stocks and that these should achieve a balance between conservation and maintaining a viable fishing industry, the Government's recognition of the need to match Community fishing capacity with available fisheries resources, and the principle of strengthening the structural measures to reduce fleet size, provided that such measures can offer value for money.
The motion refers specifically to two proposals from the European Community, which are fairly narrow in scope. They concern the new-structures proposals, and specifically the proposals on technical conservation. The latter are of particular importance, as they affect the whole way in which fishing fleets operate. However, I shall confine myself to minute detail, because that is where the effect of the proposals will lie.
In fisheries, the status quo is simply not sustainable. We are seeing damage to the stocks, low spawning stocks and an unacceptable level of discards. In recent trials in the Heather Sprigg, for every 10 fish landed above the minimum landing size some 12 were below that minimum and had to be discarded. The problem must be tackled by Community action, and we shall discuss the proposals at a meeting of the Council of Ministers on Tuesday. When I attend that meeting, I shall have two objectives: first to conserve fish, and secondly to conserve the livelihoods of fishermen.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: At that meeting, will my hon. Friend ensure that the concerns of east-coast Canadian fishermen are taken into account? They are concerned about the activities of Spanish and Portuguese fishermen who are operating off the coast of the Grand Banks—outside the territorial waters, but nevertheless in the area concerned—and causing problems for Canadian fishermen who make their livelihood obeying the quota arrangements from the North West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation.

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is attempting to lead me about 3,000 miles adrift. He is referring to the problems in NWAFO area off the Canadian coast, which will be discussed as part of the negotiations concerning TACs and quotas on which we will embark in December. However, I have met the Canadian Minister twice to discuss technical conservation. I know that he is in touch with Brussels, and that recently relations have improved somewhat.
I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that we are attentive to the problems. As he said, the causes are related to the exclusion of Spanish and Portuguese vessels from the major Community-controlled waters because of their late entry into the Community.
As I have said, there are two objectives: to conserve fish, and to maintain the livelihood of fishermen. It is fairly easy to achieve one at the expense of the other. It is relatively simple to conserve fish by having nets so large


that the fishermen are driven out of business entirely. In the short term we could conserve the livelihoods of fishermen by enabling them to fish at will, but they would then run out of fish and their livelihoods would disappear in any event. It is important to keep a balance.
The steps discussed in the negotiations may not be dramatic in themselves, but their cumulative effect is to deliver a significant conservation payload. The practical steps must have the fundamental aim of improving the selectivity of the gear. It is a great mistake to believe that there is one glorious grand design or idea to solve all our problems. In a multi-species fishery, that just is not the case. We must avoid the temptation to think, "Here is the Holy Grail to solve our fisheries problems." Even if we solve the haddock problem, for instance, we may then find that another species is at risk.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Does the Minister accept that—especially in the North sea—there are problems with the size of fish because of the different water temperatures? Moving to 120 mm nets will kill off many white fisheries, especially in the areas that I represent.

Mr. Curry: I shall be referring to that shortly, and I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with what I have to say.
The requirements of cod, haddock and whiting—the principal species sought by Scottish fishermen—are not the same. Conservation efforts devoted to one species could result in different consequences for another.
Let me briefly outline the Commission's proposal. It is proposing a mesh size of 120 mm for the traditional diamond-shaped net, to operate in the North sea and the northern part of the west of Scotland. The whole top half of that area should have the square mesh, but the Commission would permit the continued use of the diamond-shaped 90 mm nets if they could guarantee a 50 per cent. whiting catch. In those circumstances, there would be no minimum landing size for whiting. The Commission's proposal also deals with the geometry of the cod end and proposes that fishermen should carry a single net.
Parts of the proposal are constructive, because they draw on experiments and proposals from the United Kingdom. Square mesh has been developed and given trials in the United Kingdom, especially off the north-east coast of England and in Scottish waters.
I am willing to credit the Commissioner with constructive intentions. In negotiations, it is sensible to assume good rather than bad will at the beginning. However, I must make it clear that the proposal as it stands is unacceptable to us, and I am fairly confident that most of my colleagues in the Council would say the same. I have done a great deal of leg work meeting other Fisheries Ministers here before the meeting, and I am fairly confident that there will be very little support for the proposal—although I am not sure what the Luxembourg position is on mesh size.
Our reservations are not limited to the proposals on mesh sizes. We do not think that a specific whiting fishery of the kind implied in the proposals will be possible. With that sort of fishery, there would be a massive level of discard of stock other than whiting—notably, it would

mop up a great deal of small haddock, consequently promoting the industrial fishery. The Government's firm policy is that more and more fish should go into the human consumption fishery.
One of the most notable changes over the past few years has been that species that were once given to the cat or went into industrial use are increasingly going into a high-value human consumption fishery—the horse mackerel being a species in point.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Minister accept that the whiting proposals might not just promote the industrial fishery? Given the interests of certain Fisheries Ministers in the European Community, does the hon. Gentleman believe that the intention might be to promote the industrial fishery? Will the Minister say clearly that it is not acceptable for 1 million tonnes of pout, small fish and sand eels in the North sea to go into the industrial fishery when the haddock quota is down to under 40,000 tonnes? Will the hon. Gentleman say clearly that he will come forward with further measures to clamp down on the industrial fishery, as opposed to allowing such measures as we have before us, which would promote it?

Mr. Curry: We have made it clear that we do not believe that an industrial purpose is the best destiny for fish. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman reads Fishing News. Today's edition contains an interview with the Danish Fisheries Minister in which he said that he has a good relationship with me. That is true and I am delighted to acknowledge that. The Minister said that we do not see eye to eye on industrial fisheries. Those words came out of his own mouth.

Mr. Neville Trotter: Is there ever debate on the subject of industrial fishing on its own, or is it always lost in the fish trading that goes on in Brussels? It never seems to be put to the Commission as an individual issue.

Mr. Curry: It tends to be absorbed into the general debate on total allowable catches and quotas, which we have in the marathon session in December. We defend vital interests in that debate—for example, mackerel flexibility is of particular importance to the Scottish fleet. The klondiking operation is closely linked to that in Scotland. There is currently some debate in Scotland about that operation. This matter happens to be of particular importance to the Danes. A balance and a bargain must be struck. That does not alter the fact that we constantly make it clear that we are not supporters of the concept of an industrial fishery, but I have to recognise that my Danish colleague has an interest which he is pursuing.
The Commission's proposals are not acceptable. We have tried them. We do not just make a theoretical statement. Boats have been rigged to tow that net and have been compared with boats with a conventional net. The boats end up without many fish in the net. It will not work. The system is not practical. We have explained that to the Commissioner. We have sent him and just about everyone else videos with commentary. To give him credit, in starting this debate by putting forward fairly radical proposals, his intention was to pull other Ministers along with him so that they recognised that something had to be done. That is a legitimate purpose. We have made clear the


changes that we want and said that this is simply a bridge too far in terms of protecting the livelihoods of fishermen and that it does not necessarily deliver on conservation either.
What is the essence of these proposals? What do we want out of the negotiations? As I said, the key is selectivity. The aim is to stop the mesh closing. To use an old analogy, diamond-shaped mesh is like a string bag containing a 31b bag of self-raising flour—the more weight in the bag, the more the mesh closes.
What can be done? We are considering the option of rigging part of the net with square mesh, but even the square mesh is not the answer to a maiden's prayer in terms of all conservation. For example, it is not necessarily a great help in catching cod, although it is of significant help in catching haddock. The United Kingdom has 46 per cent. of the Community cod quota and 78 per cent. of the Community haddock quota, so we have a major interest in these matters. There is a clear conservation dividend in getting 80 mm square net. That is less than for the diamond shape. We must be careful that we do not assume that experiments are categorical in every respect. But they give clear evidence that there is a pay-off.

Mr. James Wallace: No doubt, as an ardent reader of Fishing News, the Minister will have seen the comments in last week's edition by Mr. George Traves, the president of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations. He suggested that experimentation on the square nets was not getting support from the top. He specifically mentioned the lack of co-ordination between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Sea Fish Industry Authority on the square net experiments. Has the Minister any comment to make on that allegation?

Mr. Curry: At the very moment I noticed the article in Fishing News, I was sitting across the table from Mr. George Traves and representatives of the NFFO. I found it slightly bizarre that he had apparently said to Fishing News that we never talked to the NFFO and that it did not know what was happening, when the date of our meeting had already been fixed. We are in constant communication with the NFFO. I met its representatives last Friday. Just for the record, so that we have no difficulties in Anglo-Scottish questions, may I say that this morning I met representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation in Aberdeen and had an extremely constructive and friendly meeting in which we achieved a large measure of understanding.

Mr. Wallace: But we have spoken to them.

Mr. Curry: I think that I met representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation more recently.
We wish to limit the meshes in the cod end to ease a problem of escape and to prevent the ballooning effect. We believe that certain attachments should be banned, notably, topside chafers. I am trying to use parliamentary language to describe "topside chafers" because it has a slightly titillating feeling about it. It is an outer net which goes over the cod end to protect it. It is more prosaic than one would imagine at first glance. We should also like a ban on lifting straps except in nephrops fisheries.
There is a difficult choice to make on mesh sizes. I put it clearly before the fishermen's organisations. I did not try

to pretend that the choice would be anything other than difficult. We know that the 90 mm mesh which exists now is wasteful. I have said that the status quo is unsustainable. I do not think that anyone disagrees—the fishermen do not. It is clear that an 80 mm square panel appears to cut discard by 10 to 14 per cent. in experiments, but there are some signs that the level might be higher. Clearly, there is a dividend from this. If we have 90 mm square mesh, we get a much bigger saving of about 40 per cent. on haddock discards, but then there is whiting loss. If whiting escape, there is a problem with predation on other fish.
That all rests on science that is 10 years out of date. We need to look hard to see whether that is true. A new programme is coming up next year to consider it. At the moment, it is generally thought that whiting pose a predatory problem, but we must bring ourselves up to date on the behaviour of a multi-species fishery. If we have the 100 mm diamond shape, the haddock discards are cut, but there is a big whiting problem.
There are clear benefits from those proposals, but we must carry the fishermen with us. I do not want us to try to do things that appear to be unreasonable and the fishermen to say that they might as well be hung for a sheep as for a goat. I do not want them to have an incentive not to make conservation work rather than try to make it work. That is the purpose behind this step-by-step approach. We need action. We believe that there is a big year class of haddock in 1990. In summer next year, we will have to protect the survivors of that class so that they can go into spawning stock and provide the fishing resources for future years. We do not want them to be hammered, particularly if it turns out to be a very promising class.
The other set of proposals relates to structures. I shall go through them relatively quickly. If hon. Members want specific details on grant levels, I shall undertake to supply them rather than detain the House unnecessarily. The Commission wishes to extend the modernisation grants and new vessel construction grants in the small fisheries to boats under 9 m in length. In the United Kingdom, that represents about 55 per cent. of our registered vesseles, but only 1 per cent. of our tonnage. I am sure that the House will understand why I have some hesitations about the programme when I say that 80 per cent. of the combined Spanish, French, Greek and Portuguese fleet is under 9 m. There is a danger of going into a bottomless pit of expenditure and engineering an increased pressure on stock while, in the Mediterranean and elsewhere, the problem is pressure on the stock.
Increased aid will be proposed for joint ventures. There will be payment of a proportion of the cost on a contract basis so that Community fishermen can exploit third-country stocks for landing in the Community market. There are redeployment proposals to encourage boats to fish outside Community waters. There are joint ventures which will permit the transfer of boats into other waters and there is a decommissioning proposal which would increase the rate according to the age and size of the vessel. By and large, the rates would go up by about 20 per cent. and there would be a 70 per cent. Community contribution below the 12 m level.

Mr. Salmond: rose——

Mr. Curry: I should have been disappointed if the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) had not risen to his feet at this point.

Mr. Salmond: The last few words of the motion are:
and the principle of strengthening structural measures to reduce fleet size, provided that such measures can offer value for money".
I and, I suspect, other hon. Members had substantial hopes that the Minister was about to recant the ridiculous policy of opposition to decommissioning. If not, what benefit would it be to Scottish, English or Northern Irish fishermen to have an increase in the grant to 70 per cent. when they are not entitled to any take-up because of the Government's hostility to a measure that is part of the fisheries policy of every country in the Community with the sole exception of southern Ireland?

Mr. Curry: The only problem with the hon. Gentleman's thesis is that at present, only four countries qualify for Community grant on the ground that they have met their multi-annual guidance programme targets. All the other countries have failed to meet their targets and do not qualify for grants, so the idea that the rest of the Community is a pack of people who are redolent of virtue while we are sinners is a misrepresentation of the position. The motion shows that we attach particular importance to value for money—the hon. Gentleman would have been disappointed if I had not repeated that phrase—and we still do not believe that this scheme offers value for money. The position has not changed. Hon. Members may raise the matter as much as they like this evening, but they will not get a different answer.

Mr. Wallace: Following the meeting between the fishermen's leaders, and the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at the Conservative party conference, there were suggestions in the fishing press that the door was not as tightly shut as it had been. Can the Minister enlighten the House on what gave rise to such expectation? Does he have any proposals that would allow "value for money"? Clearly, that is the Government's objective. How does the Minister think that they will achieve it?

Mr. Curry: It is true that there was a delegation of some members of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation at the Conservative party conference at Bournemouth. The delegation met me and my right hon. Friend and we discussed the problems facing the fishing industry. I met members of the federation again this morning, when they raised their concerns again—no doubt in the same terms—and I told them that there was some suggestion that the Commission was considering a voluntary scheme. They asked what our reaction would be and I said that we should have to wait to see what the scheme was.
We always listen to proposals. As one would imagine, with my right hon. Friend as Minister, we are very ecumenical. However, we have still not been persuaded that a decommissioning scheme would give value for money. The Government's position has not changed at the margins of any conference.
We are seeking to keep expenditure within agreed ceilings. The Commission has provided a fiche that sets out the costs of proposed new measures in 1991 and shows that the ceiling on expenditure set in 1986 should not be exceeded provided that no changes are made to the proposals. We will watch the situation closely, as some member states are seeking to increase the already generous rates of grant and the estimates of costs for successive

years have not been provided. We are requesting that they should be drawn up so that our future commitments to the budget are clear.
I must remind the House that, although the Community may put forward 70 per cent. of the cost, much of that 70 per cent. is United Kingdom finance because of the operation of the Fontainebleau mechanism. To assume that this is largely Community money is wrong; it is largely British money no matter what flag it carries when it comes into the country.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: The Minister has made clear his position and that of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Is it his impression that the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries is equally unpersuaded about the merits of the decomissioning scheme?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that my noble Friend who has responsibility for Scottish fisheries accompanied me at all my meetings this morning.

Mr. Salmond: That is Lord Strathclyde.

Mr. Curry: I am aware of his name and I know his first name as well. We had a good meeting and he did not dissent from my propositions. There is no difference between the positions of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on this matter. There is certainly no difference between us on any of the proposals that are our subject for debate tonight.

Sir Michael Shaw: I understand that we have to make a contribution. However, under the Fontainebleau arrangement, is not there a kick-back by way of taxation benefiting the Treasury which would largely alleviate this?

Mr. Curry: There are rebates to the United Kingdom once expenditure goes beyond certain limits. However, if there is a net inflow of new funds into the United Kingdom, the rebate itself is rebated—that is, diminished by the same amount. In other words, the flow of funds to the United Kingdom abates the rebate. It is a complicated matter, so I took the precaution of boning up on it before I came here in case one of my hon. Friends asked me such a question. If my hon. Friend the Paymaster General were still here, he would confirm my answer.

Mr. Trotter: Are not we, in effect, contributing to the grants that go to other countries through Brussels?

Mr. Curry: Broadly speaking, the United Kingdom pays 20 per cent. of the Community budget, so there is 20 per cent. of British money in these grants. Similarly, whatever proportion is paid by other countries is reflected in any money that comes to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: That means that we are contributing to the modernisation of the fleets in the four countries that the Minister mentioned, which come here to catch our stocks. It is useful to know that.
The Minister did not answer the point made by the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) who asked whether there was a return to the Government in the taxation of the grants that are paid out under a decommissioning scheme. That would lessen the British contribution.

Mr. Curry: The answer to the second question is no. The answer to the first is that the United Kingdom is not subsidising other people to catch our fish, because there is no competition in fisheries. We have divided up the Community waters. There is a British zone and British fish, and British licensed vessels are the only vessels that are permitted to take that fish. The Dutch cannot, for example, put on a brand-new beamer and fish in United Kingdom waters unless they have a specific agreement that gives them access and unless a licence appertains to it.
During my introductory speech, we have already had a mini-debate. The proposals that we intend to pursue in Brussels are realistic and sensible and take a practical approach. The fact that each may not be dramatic in itself does not alter the fact that the conservation that they will deliver is significant and worth while. It is a step which our fishermen would endorse, welcome and implement. Once those proposals prove to be a success, we may then wish to take further steps. Consensus and collaboration with the industry form part of the way forward, but the Marin proposals do not give us that basis. In very difficult negotiations, our proposals will seek to attain that basis, so I ask for the support of the House for our proposals.

Mr. Elliot Morley: I welcome many of the Minister's comments about the aspects of the regulations that are causing concern to our fishermen. To emphasise the urgency of the need to act, I quote from the explanatory memorandum to the EC proposal:
In its report of 30 May … the high-level working party found that the conservation of fishery resources, particularly the North Sea, is inadequate and that the long-term advantages of satisfactory conservation of stocks is not guaranteed. For almost all the stocks for which analytical assessments are available, fishing of the stocks has increased, the biomass has decreased and the percentage of juveniles in the catches has increased. The situation of cod and haddock in the North Sea is particularly disturbing and urgent.
It is against that background that we must consider the proposals concerning the conservation of fish stocks and the technical measures that are required to make progress.
There is concern that the total allowable catch figures are not working to preserve fish stocks and I am informed that at present scientists cannot set a TAC for North sea stocks. Whatever happens in the coming round, I suspect that pressure will be brought to bear for a further reduction—on top of the disastrous reductions that took place this year.

Mr. Curry: I will give the hon. Gentleman some information on that to help our debate. The advisory committee on fisheries management has declined to recommend TACs and quotas and has suggested a method of effort reduction. We wish to have that translated into the form of TACs and quotas. The Commission agrees and has therefore suggested quota levels in the context of the Norwegian negotiations, which are the preliminary to negotiations within the Community. As yet, however, there are no Commission proposals as such for us to consider. What the hon. Gentleman says is right, but I thought that it would help the House if I clarified the point.

Mr. Morley: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. Whatever comes out of the agreement, I suspect that it will bring pressure for still further

reductions in catches, which in turn will place further pressure on our fishing fleet. That emphasises the need for positive help.
I welcome the Minister's remarks about the proposal for a mesh size of 120 mm. There is no doubt that that would be to the advantage of the fishery in terms of conservation. The question is whether the fishery could stand the financial loss that it would face while the stocks recovered. I know that the Commission is doing its best in terms of conservation, but the 120 mm mesh size is not acceptable, and I am pleased to hear that the Minister will be arguing for a compromise agreement when he meets the Commission.
I accept what the Minister says about square mesh panels, for which there is considerable enthusiasm among fishermen. The research pioneered in this country appears to have been very successful. I am concerned that the Commission does not seem to have given enough thought to the exact location of those panels within the net structure in the light of continuing research. I hope that such matters will be brought before the Commission. Gill clogging can be a problem. Moreover, I understand that there has been no research into the effectiveness of square mesh panels in the Irish sea, in sector 7. There is also concern about the selectivity of square mesh panels, with cod in particular, although we know that it works with haddock and whiting which tend to go up into the cod end.
I share the concern that has been expressed about the EC's attitude to whiting. I am suspicious about why it is being argued that the mesh size can be smaller for whiting and that no minimum size for landing can be justified. In a letter in this week's Fishing News, a fisherman wrote that, in all his years of gutting fish, he had rarely come across juvenile cod and haddock in the stomachs of whiting. He argued that whiting prey mainly on fish other than the high-value fish stocks. There is a suspicion that the inclusion of whiting is to the advantage of the industrial fishing nations.
I was pleased to hear the Minister's comments about industrial fishing. The time has come to tackle the issue head-on. With fish stocks declining, and given the pressure on our marine ecology, large-scale industrial fishing for use in fertilisers and animal feed can no longer be justified where alternatives are available. I hope that the Commission will give more thought to the waste which occurs in the gutting of fish. I note that the American fleets now have fishmeal factories at sea, so rather than being thrown over the side and wasted, the guts can be collected and processed at sea, thus maximising fishmeal resources and reducing the need for industrial fishing on its scale currently occurring in the North sea. The Commission has not tackled the problem seriously enough. I hope that the Minister will open a debate on the issue, because if fleets are to be restructured, serious consideration should be given to a major restructuring of Britain's industrial fishing fleets.
I welcome the proposal to consider the closure of spawning and other sensitive areas. Not enough has been done about that. Regional fishermen are well aware of areas in their coastal patches that it would be advantageous to close at certain times of the year. I know that that is already done with some species and in some grounds, but I should like an extension of the practice based on scientific fact. The regional fishermen should be involved and we should seek their advice and draw on their expertise in deciding where closures should take place.
I digress slightly, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I should like the Minister to consider the development of a total coastal zone planning policy so that we may identify the sensitive areas and control disturbances caused by dredging and industrial output as part of an overall plan for the management of our fisheries. I emphasise that there is a role for the fishermen, who could be involved on a regional basis and could identify the areas where——

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying a long way from the narrow debate on the documents. I am sure that he will come back to them.

Mr. Morley: I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker; I shall certainly come back to the strait and narrow, but we are discussing conservation measures and EC proposals and I merely seek to make some proposals of which I am sure the Minister is taking note and which he could put before the Council of Ministers and the EC for their consideration.
I can see the logic of the one-net rule in terms of stopping abuse, but it will cause problems for some fisheries where nephrops are fished as well as white fish and where more than one net is carried. I wonder whether the Minister has considered the problem of enforcement.
One cannot separate technical and conservation measures from structures and I think that the Minister recognises that there is still a problem of capacity in terms of the pressure on our fish stocks. That brings me to a point that has already been raised: given that funding is available for a decommissioning scheme, why does the Minister continue to reject the suggestion?
We have been through these arguments before, but on my travels around the country I have talked to many fishermen—to the harbour commissioners in Bridlington, as well as to those in the small ports in the south of England and to those in the larger ports on Humberside—and I know that the whole industry is asking for a proper decommissioning scheme to help it to meet the problems that it faces. The 70 per cent. funding of a decommissioning scheme is now proposed; Governments have only to find 30 per cent. of the cost. As it is, we are paying into a pool to help restructure other countries' fleets but we are to receive no benefit at all.
The hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) referred to the Fontainebleau agreement. I stand to be corrected, but I understand that any expenditure that the Government put into the scheme can be recovered through capital gains tax, payable for those in receipt of decommissioning grants.
Even the small proportion that the Government would have to find to make the scheme work could thus in some part be clawed back through taxation, so we are talking about an even smaller proportion of finance than the 30 per cent. in the scheme. Given that fact, how can the Minister continue to argue that decommissioning is not the answer? He has admitted in earlier debates that it is not beyond the capabilities of his Ministry to come forward with a cost-effective and workable decommissioning scheme. If he accepts that he has the expertise to meet the criteria for decommissioning and to recognise the faults

which occurred in earlier decommissioning schemes, there is no reason why a coherent scheme cannot be introduced to help the industry.
Some of the EC's proposals are meant for modernisation and construction, as well as for decommissioning. While we have such overcapacity, why is the Commission still devoting resources to modernisation and construction? Surely the priority, should be decommissioning. Given that priority which the Commission recognises even if the Government do not, I do not see why more money should not be devoted to decommissioning so as to move towards a 100 per cent. scheme. If necessary, that could be achieved by reducing the money available for modernisation. The Government have not yet met the targets in line with the multi-annual guidance programme, because the measures that have been brought forward so far are not adequately reducing the effort of our fishing fleet. That underlines the need for a decommissioning scheme.
I noted the Minister's comments on joint ventures and there are proposals to give those ventures more assistance. However, there are also proposals to remove from EC waters some of the ships taking part in joint ventures, and compensation is being made available for that. Would that have an effect on preferential trade agreements which have been built up with third countries? I hope that the Minister will consider that point.
I understood the Minister's point about the Canadian problem and the fact that as a result, in particular, of Spanish over-fishing due to the EC's failure to agree quotas with the North Atlantic Fishing Organisation, United Kingdom vessels are prohibited from operating within the Canadian 200-mile limit or from landing at Canadian ports. If we are looking for new waters and new species to exploit, those issues must be resolved.
Does the Minister share the concern of organisations such as the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations about differentiation between the ages of vessels and their respective tonnages? While the logic of the calculations is not disputed, that logic does not seem to apply to the multi-annual guidance programme. There should surely be a correlation in terms of the calculations.
Does the Minister accept that there is a danger in the regional approach as outlined in his proposals, particularly if East Germany is included as a preferential region, with all the expense to which that might commit the EC as part of its own very large fleet? I am also concerned about the exclusion from the Minister's proposals of cessation grants for retiring fishermen. I accept that one of the criticisms of previous decommissioning schemes in this country is that most of the money went to a few owners of vessels. If we are taking vessels out of our fishing effort, there must be some compensation for the crews.
Will the Minister comment on recent tribunal cases, which have found that former Hull and Grimsby fishermen who lost their jobs following the cod wars were actually redundant and were not part of the classification of casual labour?

Mr. Curry: To clarify the point about grants for fishermen who, as it were, go out with their vessels, the Commission withdrew those proposals after legal advice, on the grounds that it was not an appropriate part of the FEOGA funding operation. The Commission said that, if that point was pursued, it had to be pursued in the context


of the social fund. We need not have an argument across the Dispatch Box about that, because the Commission took the initiative to withdraw it on legal advice.

Mr. Morley: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation of why the proposal was withdrawn. People were very concerned about that. The issue can be pursued in other venues and under different budget headings. I want to pay tribute to people like my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) who have been involved in the campaign for redundancy for our fishermen. I hope that the Minister will join me in pressing the Department of Employment to settle in full the outstanding claims of those fishermen who lost their livelihoods as a result of the fishing grounds that were lost following the cod wars.
I am a keen supporter of the aquaculture sector of the industry and I am keen to see it grow. I accept that care needs to be taken in terms of financial support because there is considerable overcapacity of certain species, particularly of salmon. Careful thought must be given to the effect of encouraging more capacity in areas where the price is falling because of the problems not only of this country but of third countries entering the market.
Will the Minister consider the fact that some countries, particularly Spain, have said that they see aquaculture as a future way of reducing efforts and the role and size of their fishing fleets? They see it as a way of providing compensatory employment. That is a welcome step forward for restructuring employment, but should not support for aquaculture be linked with a reduction in fleet capacity for the countries applying for that support? A new industry can be encouraged and that can be linked with the contraction of an industry which has a problem with overcapacity.
Will the Minister consider safety support for our ships and support grant aid for proper clothing and equipment, particularly for flotation suits? I stand to be corrected if such equipment is already eligible for grant aid. The Minister will be aware that a company in this country called Mullion has a considerable market in flotation suits. Those suits allow fishermen to work on deck. They do not restrict them and they offer considerable protection should a fisherman fall overboard. Not only are they flotation suits, but they allow air to be trapped inside the suit to protect the fisherman from the cold northern seas.
I must confess that those suits are made in my constituency, so it is only reasonable that I should declare an interest in the matter. It seems ironic that Canadian fishing boat owners are buying those suits in large quantities to protect their crews, while in this country, where the suits are made, they are rarely to be found on the decks of our boats.
The whole issue of reduced effort is linked with conservation measures and a proper and effective decommissioning scheme. We have all heard the arguments against the decommissioning scheme and about the weaknesses of earlier schemes. However, it is not adequate simply to judge decommissioning schemes on what happened in the past and on their faults and weaknesses. We can structure a scheme in this country which will meet the needs of our fishing fleets and provide a sensible, structured and careful reduction in effort in a way which will assist our fishermen and ensure that they do not suffer as a result of the restructuring which must take place.
I do not believe that the Government have given enough thought to that. They have not been serious about it. When 70 per cent. of the cost is to be met by EC funds into which we are paying, our fishing fleets have a right to expect a proper decommissioning scheme, and the British taxpayer is entitled to know that the money that we are paying into schemes is redistributed to the people in our country who need that help and support.

Mr. David Harris: I suspect that the House might have been puzzled by the intervention at the beginning of the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), who has now left the Chamber, on behalf of the Canadian fishing industry. As far as I know, Hereford is not one of our main fishing ports. The explanation is simple. Yesterday, six Canadian parliamentarians came here to see hon. Members on both sides of the House who have an interest in fishing to complain about the situation in Canada. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford is an officer in the body that links this place with the Canadian Parliament, and that was his interest. What interested me about their remarks was the similarity of the problem faced by those of us who represent fishing constituencies in the United Kingdom and that faced by the Canadians—the old problem of overcapacity in fleets chasing limited fish stocks.
There are other aspects of the problem with which we are also familiar. They spoke mainly against the Spanish fishermen and about the misreporting of catches on a big scale. I do not want to upset what I think will be a harmonious debate, at least on the Back Benches, but I have to say that I am receiving still more complaints about misreporting of catches from Scottish fishermen who are allegedly catching fish in the North sea and then counting them against the quotas for the south-west of England.
This cheating is to the detriment of fishermen in the south-west, in two ways. It exhausts the quotas for that part of the world quickly and leads to Scots fishermen building up a considerable track record of catching in those waters. That historical track record will be of great importance in the years to come. However, I do not want to say too much about that.

Mr. Wallace: Given the tenor of those remarks, is it not a pity that there is not present a single Conservative Member representing a Scottish constituency, whether or not it is a fishing one, to give us some information?

Mr. Harris: I look to the hon. Gentleman to give: us information and to contradict, if he dares, what I have said.

Mr. Calum MacDonald: I support what the hon. Gentleman has just said, but will he be a little more specific? The fishermen about whom he is talking are generally from the east coast of Scotland. I have the same complaint from my fishermen as the hon. Gentleman gets from his fishermen, only about east-coast fishermen fishing in west-coast waters.

Mr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman has raised this issue in the House before and, although I do not claim to be an expert on the position in his part of the country, I suspect that there is a grain of truth in what he has said.
I happened to receive today a letter from Mr. Michael Townsend, the chief executive of the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation. He maintains:
Most species have a certain amount of misreporting this year but the real concern is for the area VII Haddock, which I assess, and no one disagrees with me, at 340 tons out of the annual quota of 600 tons, i.e. 56 per cent. misreporting.
If that is the situation, and I am sure that he is right, it is serious, not just for this year but for future years when the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation will take up its sectoral allocations.
Although I do not expect a detailed reply from my hon. Friend the Minister on this matter, he knows my concern about it, as I have had meetings with him. I ask him to look at the situation again with Ministers and officials from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland so as to get to the bottom of the problem. It cannot go on as it is. We often complain about fishermen of other nations cheating, but the matter becomes even more serious when, unfortunately, we have to make such allegations about fishermen from other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Member is making a serious point. If misreporting is going on to the extent that he alleges, there is something seriously wrong with the enforcement of fisheries legislation. Has he any comment on that?

Mr. Harris: I agree. As it is difficult to police to perfection, we cannot have a perfect enforcement system. I acknowledge the steps that my hon. Friend the Minister has introduced, such as dealing with the reporting in of vessels. What has been suggested, in the past at any rate, is that vessels that have claimed to be fishing in the south-west have been nowhere near that area. We must have measures on that, and I know that my hon. Friend has met those points.

Mr. Curry: Let me try to lay this issue to rest, as far as possible. My hon. Friend will know that we are consulting on the proposal that, when producer organisations take a sectoral allocation in one species, they take it for all the sectors. This would get to grips with the problem of boats, owned by whomever, fishing in one sector and claiming that the catch came from somewhere else. We are looking into reporting requirements. I note his point about the track record, but I do not wish to pursue that at the moment. I am sure that he will be delighted to know that we managed to get some more cod for the Irish sea following those allegations.

Mr. Harris: I am grateful for that assurance, and I pay tribute to the work done by my hon. Friend in handling this difficult situation.
The word that will be repeated throughout this debate is "decommissioning". My hon. Friend the Minister put up a skilful defence, as one would expect, of the Government's position, but he will find on both sides of the House a feeling that the Government will have to look again at decommissioning, for the reasons set out by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) in a fair, reasonable and thoughtful speech. I did not disagree with much in it.
We must not close our minds. We all know the difficulties that accompanied the last scheme, and I can understand the Government's reluctance to go down the

road of decommissioning grants again, having had a mauling by the Public Accounts Committee over the workings of that scheme. However—I say this in all friendliness—the time has come for my hon. Friend the Minister to look at the issue again. I do not see how we shall get the necessary reduction in our fleet and in our catching capacity, as I do not see how our existing policy will achieve that. I am not saying that a decommissioning scheme must be introduced, but it would be a mistake to close our minds absolutely and firmly to it.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to have studies made of variations of the scheme. If Scottish fishermen can come forward with voluntary proposals, fine. My hon. Friend should look at those, as he promised he would. I think he will find that Conservative Members—there is no collusion on this point, and I am not even expressing the view of the Conservative party Back-Bench fisheries committee, which I happen to chair—feel that we shall have to return to the subject and look at it again, without commitment. I urge that course on my hon. Friend.

Mr. John D. Taylor: We are debating two revisions to regulations from the European Community, one on North sea conservation schemes and the other on small-scale fisheries vessels' support schemes. The Minister might have been right to say that the debate could be described as narrow. We are debating also the motion in the names of the Prime Minister and her colleagues. It is a broad motion that covers the balance between conservation and maintaining a viable fishing industry and, secondly, the principle of strengthening structural measures to reduce fleet size.
We are told that the amending regulations will extend to Ceuta and Melilla on the African coast. Strangely enough, that part of Africa is within the European Communities. The two territories happen to be part of the national territory of Spain.
The Minister and I were colleagues for some years at Strasbourg, and he will know of my continuing interest in Gibraltar. I ask him to confirm that the fishing industry in Gibraltar will have the same support in this measure as that which is to be extended to Ceuta and Melilla.
The debate will have implications for the area which I represent, which in this context is the Irish sea. The proposed measures for the North sea, and especially the increase in mesh size from 90 mm to 120 mm, have a knock-on effect on other fishing areas, and especially in the Irish sea.
The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) raised an issue which is of continuing concern to us in Northern Ireland, and that is the dramatically increased landings by United Kingdom vessels in Scottish ports. The hon. Gentleman went so far as to allege that there was cheating by Scottish fishermen. I shall not go so far as to make that dreadful allegation against my kith and kin in Scotland, but I was interested that the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) was quick to allege that it was the fishermen of eastern Scotland who were cheating and not the western fishermen. I shall have to check that in detail.
It is interesting, however, that there is such a large Scottish fishing lobby in the Chamber this evening. I seem to be surrounded by members of it. They represent all the main political parties in Scotland.

Mr. Kennedy: There are no Scottish Tories here.

Mr. Taylor: They are not members of one of the main political parties. As the hon. Gentleman says, they are not even represented in the Chamber this evening.
What is the tremendous interest of the main political parties in Scotland? In anticipation of the debate, I submitted a written question about the damage that is being done to Scottish ports by United Kingdom vessels. I shall give some figures to support the remarks of the hon. Member for St. Ives. The Minister of State, Scottish Office answered my question—this appears in column 130 of Hansard for 13 November—and provided a table of figures. It shows that cod caught in area VIIa in June 1986 was 16 tonnes. In 1987, it was 26 tonnes, in 1988 it was 51 tonnes, in 1989 it was 42 tonnes and in 1990—guess what happened in June—it was 809 tonnes. In areas VII and VIII—this excludes area VIIa—there was no catch of cod from 1987 to 1989. Suddenly, however, in June 1990, there was a catch of 175 tonnes.
I could continue with facts and figures to substantiate the allegation which has been made by the hon. Member for St. Ives. Although one of the measures that we are being asked to amend tonight refers specifically to the North sea, there will be a domino effect on fishing opportunities in other areas.
I represent in this place the fishermen of Northern Ireland in the three fishing towns of Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel. These towns are in rural areas where there is high unemployment. The industry employs 1,600 people, half of whom are involved with the fleet. The other half is engaged in the processing industry. The rural area in which the three towns are situated earns about £20 million a year for Northern Ireland. There have been problems during the present year because of the knock-on effect of what is happening in the North sea.
Incidentally, the fishermen tell me that, although tonnage is being claimed by Scottish ports as having been found in area Vila, they have never seen the Scottish boats in that area. They can see the American nuclear submarines under the water and do all sorts of other things, but they cannot find the Scottish fishing boats that claim that they are in our sea and landing fish in Scottish ports.
The Northern Ireland fishing industry is under threat this year for numerous reasons. There is continued concern about the lack of decommissioning schemes from the Government. The Government have yielded to the demands of the Isle of Man to extend the three-mile limit to 12 miles. Now we have the problem of Scotland, the result of which is that some of the quota is taken from us and given to others.
I want the Minister to defend the rights of Northern Ireland fishermen in the context of what is happening in the North sea and at next week's session in Brussels. The Minister said in an intervention that the cod quota has been increased in the Irish sea—that is presumably in area Vila. The major threat lies in the new negotiations for total allowable catches in 1991.
I have with me the latest recommendations that I can find for the area with which I am concerned. This year, the recommended TAC for cod in the Irish sea was 15,300 tonnes. The recommendation for 1991 is a reduction to only 6,000 tonnes. The TAC for whiting this year was 15,000 tonnes and it is recommended that it be reduced to 6,400 tonnes next year. As for nephrops, the largest source of income for the Northern Ireland fishing industry and one which affects the hon. Member for Western Isles, the

recommendation is that the present 26,000 tonnes be reduced next year to 17,680 tonnes. Some of the reductions are dramatic. They amount to a 60 to 70 per cent. reduction on the tonnage that was allowed for this year.
I conclude with a few requests to the Minister. Please stand up once again for the Irish sea fisheries. We recognise the importance of the North sea to the entire British fishing industry, and we understand that it must be a matter of priority, but please accept that there is a domino effect which affects those who earn their living in the Irish sea. Please ensure that the recommendations from the scientists are not accepted unless there is proof that their opinion is correct. There are many doubts about the scientists' opinion of stocks in the Irish sea.
In what way will Northern Ireland be represented this year at the negotiations in Brussels? We know that an English Minister will be there. We know that the Scots will be represented. At what level will Northern Ireland be represented? Will there be a Minister from the Northern Ireland Office or, if not, will there be even a civil servant from the Northern Ireland Office? Or will Northern Ireland once again not have a voice in the room when the negotiations take place?

Mr. Curry: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Taylor: The Minister can answer my questions when he replies to the debate.
I hope that Northern Ireland will be properly represented and that when we have our major debate on the recommended TACs for 1990 we shall hear from the Minister a report that the allocations for area VIIa will be similar to those for 1990.

Sir Michael Shaw: I welcome this short, but none the less valuable, debate. The constructive way in which it has been conducted augurs well for future debates of this kind. When we first reached agreement in the European Community on fishing in the North sea, there was far from a community of agreement in the debates. Yet at the time I thought that the agreement reached by my right hon. Friends in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was a good one which provided a secure future for the fishermen of Britain, especially those in my constituency.
Alas, it has not turned out that way. The quotas have perhaps not been adhered to. Industrial fishing has made greater inroads, as the hon. Member for Glanford arid Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said, than was expected when the agreement was reached. I am certain that more will have to be done about that. Certainly, inspection and control needed to be improved and, indeed, at long last they have been.
Year after year, the quotas were laid down according to the best scientific evidence. We are now faced with a more difficult situation than ever before. We face difficult times and we must do our best to help fishermen to preserve their way of living, which has often been pursued for generations—for example, in ports such as Scarborough and Whitby.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister has taken up his task and that he has visited various fishing ports, including my own, and met the fishermen there. He got the feeling from them that they regard him as a pretty tough customer. None the less, they appreciate that he

 understands the problem, is interested in it and is anxious to solve it fairly and squarely both at home and in the Community. The words that he addressed to us this afternoon showed that he fully appreciates the practical problems which face our industry and that in Brussels he backs the industry fully. For that I thank him on behalf of the fishermen.
I wish to make two points. First, I echo the view that the 120 mm mesh size is over the top and cannot be sustained I shall not develop that point further, because my hon. Friend the Minister did so in some detail. It is clear that he is fully apprised of the concerns and feelings of people in the industry. I know that the industry has made firm representations to him, particularly the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, with which I and probably many other hon. Members have corresponded.
My second point has already been touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris). I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee, to which he referred. I was entirely in agreement with the conclusions that we reached in the 24th report, Session 1987–88. However, I was not in any way satisfied that we were obtaining "value for money". It is significant that those very words appear on the Order Paper this afternoon. In view of the continuing pressure from the industry and—I shall not disguise it—from my own fishermen, I feel that I should look at the matter again.
I am still doubtful that decommissioning grants are the best way. On reading the evidence again, I need some further reassurances about whether the matter merits reappraisal. On page viii of the report, in paragraph 17, we said:
We note that member states were given options as to how the EC scheme for decommissioning grants should be applied but MAFF chose to introduce a regulatory approach with provision for the automatic payment of flat rate grants. It is clear that this was exploited by some owners and grants were paid in several instances at a level which exceeded the unlicensed value of the vessel.
The paragraph continues, but I shall not quote it all.
The next paragraph says:
We consider that in drawing up the decommissioning scheme the agriculture departments could have made much better use of the flexibility allowed by the relevant EC directive; as a result in our view the scheme was grossly expensive for what it achieved.
In other words, we did not get value for money. We went on to note that, after MAFF had become aware of the NAO report, which, of course, was critical, it stopped giving decommissioning grants in 1987.
The scheme was intended to be flexible but the particular scheme adopted in Britain was inflexible. It worked very badly. Surely there were other ways of achieving the same objective by directing the grants to areas which were really in need, rather than spreading them over all types of boat. We wanted to bring certain boats out of service to reduce the sector.

Mr. Salmond: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says, but the whole point was that the decommissioning money was not spread over many boats. It went to a very few companies. As the geographical aspect has been raised several times in the debate, the hon.

Gentleman will remember that the decommissioning money and the companies which exploited it literally went up the Humber.

Sir Michael Shaw: In modern terms the scheme did not reach areas that were in need of decommissioning grants. That is the point that I wished to make. It is felt strongly by my fishermen. I am not yet completely satisfied that a scheme can be devised, but on reading again the strictures that we made in 1987–88 I realised that we disclosed that there were other ways of doing it. All that I ask of my hon. Friend the Minister is that he considers other ways. Is he completely satisfied that there are no other ways of achieving the real objectives which should have been achieved in the first place?
I hope that the Minister will be successful when he goes to Brussels. He knows its ways and how to turn on the charm and the hard act, the good mix which is essential in any negotiations in Brussels. I wish him Godspeed on behalf of us all and in the interests of good results for our constituents.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I wish to make some basic points about the crisis that is developing in the North sea. The noises coming from Brussels about a 30 per cent. reduction in effort will mean that deep damage will be inflicted, not only on the British fishing industry as a whole, but specifically on the Grimsby industry which is the case that I want to make. If that prospect materialises, I hope that it will not be compounded by a deal that is unfair to Grimsby, by invoking the Hague preference on cod.
The Minister gave us a bad deal in his unfair and unreasonable decision to invoke the Hague preference on haddock and to distribute it to the north. I wrote to him at the time to oppose it. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisation—or was it the Grimsby Fish Producers' Organisation—opposed it in court——

Mr. Curry: It was the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations.

Mr. Mitchell: Well, I am at least half right.
When the Hague preference was invoked on haddock, the Minister promised that it would not be regarded as a precedent for cod. I want the Minister to keep to that, because it is ludicrous that——

Mr. Curry: I have made it absolutely clear that if we ever had to invoke the Hague preference again—if the quantities of haddock were greater than in the previous year, and if we were to invoke it for the new species, for example, cod—we would have to reconsider the methods of distribution. I do not give any undertakings about the conclusions that we would reach. The hon. Gentleman has asked whether we would look afresh if a new species were involved. From the answer that I have already given, I hope that I have made it clear that we will.

Mr. Mitchell: I hope that the assurance will be stronger than that. Cod is of crucial and central interest to Grimsby. The Minister can interpret the Hague preference as he wants, but surely he can see that that position is unreasonable as far as Grimsby is concerned. Grimsby is a community which is dependent on fishing and is in north Britain, yet it is regarded on his definition as being outside the boundaries of the Hague preference. In other words,


north Britain begins at Bridlington. That is ludicrous, because we are a community which is dependent on fishing. If we are not interpreted as such and if the Hague preference is to be invoked on cod, it will be a crime against the Grimsby fishing industry. The Minister's assurance needs to be stronger than the one that he has just given.
An allocation of North sea plaice to compensate the industry on the west coast would have a serious effect on the Grimsby industry, which needs to diversify effort into plaice to compensate for the rundown in catches in other areas.
There must be more effective control of the over-fishing by the Scottish industry to which, in my view, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland has been turning a blind eye. We can argue about whether it is happening on the west coast or the east coast, but there is certainly a problem and it almost caused talks earlier this year to break down. The clipping that I have relating to that is not dated, but it states:
English west and south west and Northern Irish interests walked out after demanding that fish allegedly caught by Scottish vessels in the North Sea and landed in Peterhead, but logged as being caught in the Irish Sea, be reinstated as area VII fish.
That is the kind of problem that we are having.
I have tabled questions about the number of prosecutions of Scottish vessels because, as far as I recall—this is only a recollection, because I do not have the answers with me—there was nothing in 1988–89 and only something pending in 1990. That is not an appropriate response to the scale of what is admitted to be a problem, and one which has a knock-on effect on Grimsby, but to which DAFS seems to be turning a blind eye. Only proper, uniform and fair enforcement of the rules could lead fishermen to obey the rules. If, as seems to be the case, they are convinced that some are getting away with infringing or fiddling the rules, there will be a general breakdown of respect for those rules. We must be assured that the rules are being enforced as vigorously in Scotland as is the case for the English industry.
That brings me to my next point, which other hon. Members have already raised, which is that we need to get proper respect for conservation by a reduction in the fishing effort. I am unhappy to say that, but it is widely accepted that there must be some reduction. The only way to achieve that is by a proper decommissioning scheme. It is the Minister's responsibility to establish a proper decommissioning scheme.
As has been said, we are in the ludicrous position of contributing to the grants that are being made available by Europe for decommissioning schemes in other countries. The result is that other industries are being modernised, partly at our expense, and can then fish energetically in the North sea, and that we are competing with them, but are unable to get the same grants. That is ludicrous. We are not getting any benefits from the scheme.
If we were to have a decommissioning scheme, 70 per cent. of it would effectively be paid by Europe and only 30 per cent. by us, so why not develop such a scheme? As the Minister said, four other countries have already done so. The fact that the Department bungled a scheme about half a dozen years ago is no argument against a new scheme. That was simply a case of maladministration. If the Department cannot administer a scheme properly, there will clearly be fiddles and a loss of money to other

purposes. It is the Department's responsibility to devise a scheme that will work and which can be enforced. It is riot the Department's responsibility simply to say, "This is impossible." If it is impossible here, it is impossible in other countries, but other countries are actually doing it. We need such a scheme urgently.
If the British Government contributed 30 per cent. of the cost of such a scheme, a good proportion of that would come back in tax. I do not know what the Minister was saying when he denied that any tax is involved. There is a return to the revenue from taxation involved on the scheme, so something must come back that way.
The industry is arguing that it would accept some kind of levy to help to provide some form of finance for the scheme so that it does not all have to come from the Government. A letter from the operations manager of Tom Sleight of Grimsby reveals the attitude and concern of the industry. It states:
The lack of such a scheme places the UK Industry at a severe disadvantage with our European colleagues in that we are unable to dispose of surplus tonnage thus creating a better commercial platform for those left in the Industry. Decommissioning also creates a climate in which remaining vessels could be replaced with more efficient and safer vessels.
We wonder if there would be any mileage in Industry contributing to a decommissioning scheme say for example on a basis of a levy of one per cent. of first hand sales value. This added to the tax (balancing charges etc) that many would have to pay on decommissioning would in our view go some considerable way to meeting Government expenses".
That is the cost of the scheme. Why does the Minister not consider that proposal and open his mind to the possibility? We need a decommissioning scheme.
It is clear that if we do not reduce effort and if we do riot achieve proper conservation by a decommissioning scheme, the Commission itself will act. The 16 August edition of Eurofish Report, talking about a document provided by Mr. Marin for the European Parliament, argues that the current situation is highly unsatisfactory, and
hints that central Community control of all the EC's fisheries activities may yet prove to be the only way to prevent Europe's marine resources from collapsing.
In other words, if we do not act, the Commission will act and matters will then be out of our hands.
It is the Minister's responsibility to strengthen the British position and to strengthen conservation measures by providing a decommissioning scheme, which is the only effective way to provide for conservation by reducing effort. It is the Minister's responsibility to help the industry to do that. It is imperative that he provides such a scheme for the industry.
A letter from the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations argues that, if the Minister does not provide a scheme of his own, he should
request that the Commission put increased priority on decommissioning aid. If the Commission are intent on reducing effort they presently have the available budget and could indeed contribute the full assistance to vessels (as opposed to retaining the requirement that the Member State provides 30 per cent of the fund).
The NFFO notes also that the proposed budget will give 67 million ecu in contruction grants—which is certainly overgenerous given the present state of the fishing industry, which already has an overcapacity problem—but only 40 million ecu for the decommissioning scheme. That is an inappropriate portion of the funds available and needs to be substantially increased, regardless of whether it comes from the Commission or from the British


Government—though, I hope that it will be from the Government. Why should the industry's reshaping be left to market forces when other countries are able to develop with their fishing industries schemes that will reduce effort in a managed way and provide for proper conservation?
A number of hon. Members have mentioned mesh sizes, and the Commission is proposing a standard of 120 mm. There has been a chorus of complaints from other interests, particularly Scotland, but I have little sympathy with them. Grimsby has always been conservation conscious, having used the 120 mm mesh, it has prospered. It seems sensible to provide for conservation in that way.

Mr. Salmond: Grimsby fishes for cod. There is a big difference.

Mr. Mitchell: Of course, and that is why the Grimsby industry uses a 120 mm mesh. It is ludicrous for the Scottish industry to urge the adoption of a 90 mm standard. I quote from Fishing News for 5 October—

Mr. Salmond: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that, if one is fishing for different species, particularly whiting and haddock, different mesh sizes are needed?

Mr. Mitchell: I will deal with that point. I am quoting now an argument against the case advanced by the Scottish industry for adopting a 90 mm mesh. Research by the Scottish Office showed that 90 mm diamond mesh gear caught 693 haddock above the legal minimum size, but a lot of small whiting and haddock was also caught. It quotes 864 haddock and 525 whiting. It is clear that 90 mm is not the right size to use.
There is an argument as to whether we should opt for 80 mm square mesh, on the ground that the diamond mesh pulls out of shape and therefore catches smaller fish, or for 120 mm. Grimsby is happy with that size, but there is a case for changing to 80 mm square mesh, if not to 90 mm diamond mesh.
John Ashworth's work proves the validity of that argument, and its acceptance has only been delayed by what I can only regard as official obscurantism. We must make up our minds and not leave it to vested interests in the industry. It is no use just being negative and opposing the demands of the Commission. Instead, we must present effective, researched alternatives. In that way, we can make an even bigger contribution to conservation.
The question of Spanish vessels entering the British register is not really part of tonight's debate, but the Minister's remarks on that topic were anyway inadequate. It appears that we are caught between two EEC principles—the right to establish a business in any country and the right under the common fisheries policy for coastal states to superintend their own fishing and have preferential access to their own stocks. It is ludicrous that those rights should be brought into conflict by allowing Spanish vessels to register in this country as British, and then to catch our quotas. There must be more effective ways than the Minister has provided of restricting the access and right of Spanish vessels to register, at least until the matter has been resolved by the European Court. The risk of a Spanish incursion will create problems and trouble.

Mr. Curry: As the hon. Gentleman said, that aspect is not really for this debate, so rather than reply when I wind

up, I shall make a response at this point. We did not start from a zero situation in respect of quota hopping. There have been a series of court cases, and some of them have consequences for the way in which we run our management policy. With a court ruling, one cannot escape that. Therefore, when we received an approach which suggested that we might be able to arrive at an agreement, I immediately asked myself whether I could secure sensible and effective licensing conditions or whether we should proceed with the court action. After careful consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and others, I reached the conclusion that we could devise licensing conditions, which the Spanish indicated they could accept.
However, that does not affect the Factortame case in the European Court, where the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 has come under some scrutiny. Neither does it affect the requirement for those vessels to register—and to do that, they must fulfil the existing conditions of direction, management and control in the United Kingdom. I understand the hon. Gentleman's disquiet, but I would not have reached the arrangement had I not been convinced that it offered British fishermen a satisfactory outcome and an advance on what we might otherwise have achieved.

Mr. Mitchell: I am glad to hear that the European Court case is still being pursued, and it would be wrong to abandon it. However, I am concerned that the Minister has reached agreement with the Spanish, because, if it is an arrangement that they find acceptable, I doubt its value to British fishermen. Why is it that our law can be overruled by the Community when no other country seems to have that problem? Are the other member states' rules so shaped, rigged or managed that they do not have the problem of quota hoppers from other countries registering as domestic vessels and then fishing the domestic quotas?

Mr. Curry: Other countries are affected. Several have made submissions to the European Court in support of the British case, and they are clearly concerned that they might find themselves in similar difficulties. Neither Spain nor Portugal has an allocation in the common fisheries policy because they entered after the present scheme had been devised, and with very large fleets. The United Kingdom does not have the vast majority of the waters that are divided among the Community, so, since we have a large number of the species for which others want to fish—although there is less of an argument about hake, for example, because of different tastes—it is with the United Kingdom that other fishing interests want to establish a link. If we see the new arrangement through, we shall be able to establish, subject to the final ruling of the European Court, the essential principle of direction, management and control.

Mr. Mitchell: I will leave it there. I am grateful for the Minister's assurance, and I follow some of his arguments. We remain concerned about predatory Spanish efforts, which other countries seem able to exclude.
There is an emerging crisis in the North sea that threatens fishing and particularly the Grimsby industry, about which I am passionately concerned. Action needs to be taken more urgently than has been the case. I cannot see how the gradual development of political compromises and concessions will resolve that crisis. Firmer action is required. I do not accept either that quotas are a way of


resolving the problem, because they are not an effective way of policing catches. If fish are caught and cannot be landed, they are simply chucked back. As the quotas go down, the number of discards goes up. That is no way to provide for proper conservation. We need a more substantial and a devoted effort.
The Minister's efforts are welcomed by the industry. He has shown genuine concern and interest, and the industry has developed a respect for him. We are grateful that the Minister has taken an active part, and has considered the proposals, complaints and problems put to him by the industry. However, I warn him that the crisis is gathering pace and it requires action. It is no use our lagging behind. We have to develop certain basic and clear principles about conservation which will put us ahead of the game.

Mr. Neville Trotter: There can be no doubt about the seriousness of the situation. Hon. Members are conscious of the way in which Community policy has clearly failed. Regulation and control of the fishing industry is very complex but it has not achieved its aim of conservation, which is essential for the stability and long-term future of the industry.
The entire industry—whichever part of the country it is based in—is seriously worried about what has proved to be one bad year after another. In recent times there have been no good years. The fundamental issue of conservation requires a new approach. Stocks in the North sea are clearly inadequate, and steps must be taken to correct that. At present it is a vicious circle—poor recruitment of young fish, high catches of juveniles, increased discards and low level of young stock.
Cod and haddock spawn at between three and four years old. Ideally, in a well run fishery, we should be catching five or six-year-old fish. However, the vast majority of fish are being caught before they achieve spawning age. The result is self-evident, and there is a serious problem ahead. We hope that breeding habits may change but that is a complex business, and there are larger differences from year to year. For a while we could say that things would get better, but clearly they will not get better unless action is taken.
I cannot help reflecting that money seems to have gone in the wrong direction. Hon. Members have made a number of comments about the money spent on construction grants. Money has been used to encourage fishermen to build large and powerful boats—very productive boats, which have served only to add to the problem that the industry faces. One cannot blame fishermen for taking the money that was offered to them, but now they face serious consequences because of large borrowings, at high interest rates; and the high productivity affects other members of the industry who are in competition with them.
The multi-annual guidance programme calls for reductions in the fleet, whereas there has been an increase in all productive capacity. We have to face up to that. There are a number of ways to reduce catches and a combination of them is the answer. First, there can be fewer fishermen, which brings us to the question of structural changes. Hon. Members on both sides of the House support a decommissioning scheme. Secondly,

fishermen can fish less. That can be achieved in two ways—by spending less time at sea, and by using less productive gear.
There is genuine alarm at the suggestion that the Community might in its future proposals be considering a reduction in the time allowed at sea. I do not know whether the Minister can comment on that.
Most of our debate will be about the type of gear that fishermen will be allowed to use, but we must also seriously consider decommissioning. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) contributed helpfully to the debate by drawing attention to changed circumstances and to the mistakes made with the previous decommissioning scheme. He also rightly said that, because mistakes were made in the past, there is no reason why they should be made in any new scheme devised to deal with present circumstances.
As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said, it is important that the industry is interested in contributing to any scheme which is introduced. I, too, have read the latest edition of Fishing News, to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred in his introductory speech and in which Mr. Kent Kirk, the Danish Fishing Minister, was understandably cordial about my hon. Friend and referred to the good relationship between them as Ministers. Mr. Kirk said:
Along with a conservation policy we must reduce our catching capacity … We don't want to subsidise the fishing sector, but if we really want to achieve a fleet that can survive on its own in the future, then of course we have to help them take vessels out.
I believe that that is the correct conclusion. It is not the sole answer to the problem, but it should be part of a package of measures. Whatever the package, it is important that it is acceptable to the industry, and it is more likely to be acceptable if part of the package includes some form of decommissioning scheme, to which the industry would probably be prepared to contribute.
I am not sure that we spend all the money on the industry in the right way. I have already referred to the money used to encourage people to build larger, more productive boats when we were running into a serious stock shortage. The figure of £40 million per year has been bandied about as total Government spending on the industry. I understand that about £15 million of this is spent on research. If one divides that sum by the number of working days, one arrives at a figure of about £60,000 per working day for fisheries research. A great deal of money is being spent on the industry, and we should see that it includes some support for decommissioning.
The mesh size of 120 mm suggested by Commissioner Marin in Brussels is not acceptable in the North sea. It has been suggested that the Spanish, Portuguese and Greeks support such a mesh size, but they do not fish in the North sea and they are not concerned about the multi-species relationship which exists there. In our industry, there is concern that, when the time comes to renegotiate the common fisheries policy, we should ensure that our traditional rights in the North sea are maintained and that there should be no increase in fishing activity there as a result of new members of the Community seeking to intrude on our traditional markets.
The case against 120 mm nets was put very well in a recent programme on BBC Radio 4 which many hon. Members may have heard. Mr. Bernie Vaske, the outgoing


chairman of the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas committee on fish management, which gives scientific advice to the European Commission, said that he could not support the argument for a 120 mm mesh. The arguments against it are well known to hon. Members who are taking part in the debate. Young cod and haddock are eaten by predators of the whiting family. If the whiting are not controlled by fishing, breeding stocks of cod and haddock will be affected. It is thus very important that the mesh size takes into account the complex habits of the multi-species environment which exists in the North sea.
The hon. Member for Grimsby referred to some of the trials which have taken place. I am sure that his figures were accurate, but various conclusions can be drawn from them. It is perfectly true that 846 small haddock below marketable size were caught when the existing nets were used. That is evidence of the problems with the gear which is in use at present. The trial also showed, however, that using the mesh size proposed by the Commission, only eight haddock of marketable size would be caught compared with 693 with the existing gear. That supports my hon. Friend's contention that we must not make changes which conserve some fish but end up taking away the fishermen's livelihood in the process. There must be a sensible compromise.
Another statistic which came out of the same trial was that, with the present gear, 900 whiting—the predators which feed on the young cod and haddock stocks of the future—were caught. With the Commission's proposed gear, no whiting at all were caught. All those predators would therefore continue to feed on the breeding stocks on which we depend for the future of our cod and haddock. There appears to be a good argument for the square mesh to which the hon. Member for Grimsby referred. According to the trials of which I have knowledge, there would be a considerable advantage in using a form of square mesh. It would lead to a big reduction in the number of discards. Discards at present amounting to about 50 per cent. would come down to between 10 and 15 per cent. Technical changes of that kind could lead to big improvements in conservation.
Our prawn stocks off the north-east coast of England have been threatened by the use of twin trawls. Our local fishermen believe that such intensive fishing would lead to the whole stock of prawns, so important to us in the north-east, being endangered. Fishermen in North Shields and elsewhere in the north-east have, to their credit, imposed a voluntary ban on such twin trawling. It has proved to be effective, but there is great concern that because of the pressure on stocks elsewhere fishermen from outside our area will in increasing numbers seek to fish in these waters. The voluntary banning of twin trawling could not then be enforced. Consideration ought to be given to imposing a statutory ban so as to protect these stocks which are so important to local fishermen.
North Shields depends on its smaller vessels. About 60 of them are based there. The well-being of local inshore fishermen is of particular concern to us. Far more families are supported by smaller boats for the same amount of fishing effort than by the large vessels that have been built in recent years. Far more sons follow their fathers into the fishing industry in the traditional family way in the case of the inshore fleet. Inshore fishermen feel particularly

threatened by the pressures caused by diminishing stocks and by the movement of vessels into their traditional fishing grounds.
It is ridiculous that such a high proportion of small young fish should be caught unintentionally and tossed over the side as discards. Inevitably they die, with the result that they do not mature and breed. I understand that £15 million is spent each year on research. Far more information is needed about discards. They may be unintentional, but industrial fishing, which has been justifiably criticised in the debate, results in the deliberate catching of young fish. That is a scandal. The Community surely must face up to the problem and ban industrial fishing.
With regard to enforcement, more needs to be done to ensure that the gear regulations are complied with and that any black landings, or others of a suspicious nature that were referred to by a number of speakers, are exposed. The regulations must be properly enforced, but that does not now happen in some parts of the country.
A great deal more can be done to protect fish stocks by means of closed seasons and the closure of breeding areas. It would be relatively simple for the Community to agree to such proposals and I hope that these important measures will soon be agreed by the Community. The need for action is self-evident. The failure to take action in the past has led to the present dismal situation. My hon. Friend the Minister will go to Brussels knowing that the industry is united in its acceptance of the need for determined and urgent action now. We wish him well in the negotiations.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I shall deal briefly with three points that have been made in the debate. A number of other points have been made more than once, so I shall not refer to them. The Minister is well known for his open-door policy. We are grateful to him. He demonstrated that he is very much on top of his job. I have some sympathy for him. A number of hon. Members with fishing constituencies in various parts of England have spoken in the debate. It seems that the geographical wisdom of Solomon will be needed to keep these warring tribes together.
The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) lives in splendid isolation and is far away from those battles—as, I suspect, is my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). He tells me that any suggestion that fishermen in the northern isles lie is not true. That word can never be used about them. I am sure that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) will have much the same to say when he speaks.
My hon. Friends and I also oppose the proposed increase in minimum mesh size from 90 mm to 120 mm. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) speaks for Grimsby, as he made clear. However, some of us speak for a much wider area of the country, known as Scotland. The hon. Gentleman must accept that what is good for Grimsby may not necessarily be good for the rest of Great Britain. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind when he argues his case at European Community level.
The Minister referred to the fact that he had met representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation in Aberdeen earlier today. Therefore, he will have listened


directly to the case made by Bob Allan, the chief executive, Willie Hay and others. The important point that they have stressed in their briefings and at their meetings with Scottish Members of Parliament who represent constituencies with fishing interests is that the scientific information available on the selectivity of a 120 mm diamond mesh net
indicates clearly that there would be very large immediate losses in catch of marketable fish, which, in the case of haddock, would be likely to amount to not less than 50 per cent. in the average catch per haul. The decrease in the whiting catch with a 120 mm net would be very much greater, to the point of near elimination, and there is no guarantee that catches of either of these species would return in time to their previous levels, far less exceed them.
That is a cogently made case. I hope that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, who has necessarily to express the views of fishermen in his area, will nevertheless realise the genuine anxieties about the proposal of those who represent the Scottish fleet.
Every speaker in the debate has said, with varying degrees of strength and forcefulness, that the Minister should think again about decommissioning. The hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw), who served on Public Accounts Committee at the time that the critical report was published, made a pertinent point when he reminded us—this point is all too often forgotten when the PAC report is cited—that the principle of decommissioning was not criticised. It was the practical application of decommissioning in these circumstances that was criticised. The Minister reiterated that he has not yet been persuaded—I put the emphasis optimistically on the word "yet" when I paraphrase him—but it was his predecessor who was in office when the PAC presented its report. One suspects that perhaps a sense of guilt is influencing the man at the top of the Ministry.

Mr. Salmond: Embarrassment.

Mr. Kennedy: Yes, that is an appropriate reminder.
Although the Minister has stressed that he is not yet persuaded, I was interested that he did not deploy the argument that rests on the criticisms of the Public Accounts Committee. The last time I contributed to a debate on this issue, the then Minister used that argument. In fact, it was the mainstay of his opposition to decommissioning. The Minister tonight did not dwell on that and I wonder whether it is because within the internal machinations of the Department there is just a flicker of recognition that there might be some merit in what is being argued.
The way things are going, those of us who hope to be back in this place after the next election will have to get used to the total absence of Scottish Conservative Members. I do not think that even the stirring words of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) will save the Tories in Paisley next week. In fact, one may ask whether the right hon. Member for Henley will get more votes in the leadership ballot next week than the Conservative candidates will get in the two by-elections next week.
I regret that the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) is not present. Had he been here, he would have argued strongly for decommissioning. He has taken every opportunity in the local media and at Scottish questions to recommend that course to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for

Scotland. I am sure that he would have put the same argument to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had he been here tonight.
It may be an excessive fondness for crossword puzzles, but I thought that there was something cryptic about the phraseology of the Government's motion. It talks of
the principle of strengthening the structural measures to reduce fleet size, provided that such measures can offer value for money.
That suggests a hint of a shuffle in the direction of the principle of decommissioning. I should be grateful if the Minister could give some indication about the extent to which the internal representations he has been receiving from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland has helped to influence opinion at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Scottish Members try to read the smoke signals from the Scottish Office. However, the way things are going between the Minister of State and the Secretary of State, "smoke signals" is probably an understatement. The word "arson" may be more appropriate. There is a feeling that there is a fair degree of willingness in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland to go down this line but that it is being held back because of intransigence at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
The Minister said that, when he spoke in Aberdeen today, his noble Friend Lord Strathclyde—nobody in the fishing industry in Scotland had heard of him at the time of his appointment—did not demur. I do not think that that necessarily represents all Conservative political opinion in Scotland, particularly not the constituents of serving, or soon to be former, Conservative Members. Therefore, will the Minister do everything possible to listen to his Scottish counterparts and try to overcome what appears to be the rather blind and blinkered obduracy of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in setting its face so firmly against decommissioning? It has to come, and the sooner the better.
Within aquaculture, emphasis is laid on the need for further research in terms of new markets. I want to express the anxiety felt by many of those whose constituencies have become increasingly dependent upon fish farming. That makes a tremendous contribution, not least in my area, to employment and income. There are legitimate anxieties about environmental aspects which are debated vigorously locally and nationally. Equally, there is anxiety over an issue for which the Minister is not—responsible the question of how accountable the Crown Estate Commissioners might be. I appreciate that they are appointed by the Treasury, so that is not an argument for the Minister.
There is no doubt that there has been great pressure on the domestic fish farming sector, not least because of the extent of Norwegian dumping that has taken place. The industry in the highlands and islands has developed through support from the Highlands and Islands development board. Initially, to get the industry up and running—I shall not go into the pros and cons of this vexed argument—many of the multinationals were given the prime sites and the biggest holdings.
Those such as, for example, a crofter in Lewis who diversifies as an adjunct to his croft and has one cage just off the shore have suffered. As the economics of the industry have turned sour in the past year, people such as that have suffered the most. To a certain extent, the multinationals can survive the lean periods on economics of scale. Given the influence that Norwegian dumping has


had on the European market and the prices generally, I wonder what progress the Government are making at European level on the question of a levy being applied. I am sure that the Minister will be aware of the anxiety that that causes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood)—my hon. Friends can be distinguished by the names of their constituencies, as we never have one name when at least three will do—mentioned the difficulties his fishermen are experiencing. He wanted me to ask the Minister to develop at some length the Government's attitude towards individual tradable quotas. Many of us feel strongly that is not the right route to go down. It is like taking a public asset and using it against public interest. I share that view, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify that.
Generally, problems abound. Although the stance that the Government are taking on some of the specifics of the draft directives has found support on both sides of the House, there is also dissatisfaction about action that the Government could be taking but, for whatever reason, have so far chosen not to. That is the case, not least, on decommissioning. That must remain vital to the restructuring of the industry which, sadly, is long overdue. I hope that the Minister can be more forthcoming. Clearly, votes in the country are swinging on this issue, particularly in fishing communities.
I suspect that decommissioning might yet emerge as an issue that will swing votes on the Back Benches of the Tory party. After all, Henley is noted for its regatta and there is no reason why the right hon. Member for Henley should not take decommissioning to its logical political conclusion next week and apply that principle to the Prime Minister. It is a restructuring which we would welcome.

Mr. David Porter: Following the self-styled spokesman for Scotland, I shall unashamedly speak for East Anglia, and for Waveney in particular.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House informed me last week, this is likely to be our only opportunity this year to discuss fishing, so I shall crave your famous indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on some of the related matters.
It is fitting and rather sad that we are debating this matter in the week of the 15th anniversary of the ending of the Icelandic cod war. As ever, we are debating fishing under a cloud of gloom and worry. It is true that we are not facing Iceland gunboat with gunboat—we solved that war in exchange for a NATO base—but a charge of Icelandic dumping on United Kingdom markets still stands, pending further inquiry.
It is often argued that the fishing industry is divided, that it is its own worst enemy and that it is small fry compared with even the pet food industry, but is there an industry more regulated, more vulnerable to external forces beyond its control or more psychologically important to a constituency such as mine, which includes Lowestoft, than fishing? I answer those three questions no, no, no.
Like other hon. Members, I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Minister, who faces an impossible task. As the

hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) said, in England we are divided and there are differing views in the United Kingdom. We send our Ministers to Europe to do their best for our fishing waters. If ever there were a case for us to be resolute, fishing is it.
In fishing debates, hon. Members tend to make the same remarks, because in general we have the same problems, albeit with strong local differences and regional peculiarities. Although we repeat them every year, some questions remain unanswered. I hope that perhaps this year my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to answer one or two rather than leaving them hanging in the air to be answered next year.
An annual debate is inevitably a chance to air one or two grumbles. A minor grumble, but one which is important in my area, concerns the Sea Fish Industry Authority—an august body which possibly has ambitions to be even more important than it is. Its members are appointed for their expertise, but should there not be a built-in mechanism to ensure better regional representation? East Anglia is still not represented on it, but I refuse to believe that its individuals do not have the required expertise.
The explanatory memorandum comments on net selectivity to improve conservation and on banning blinders to make modest improvements in the spawning stocks. My hon. Friend the Minister says that this policy has been broadly accepted by the United Kingdom industry. Has it been broadly accepted our EC partners, especially by the Dutch, who in the past few years have built up an expertise in blinders?
We have already expressed doubts about the 120 mm mesh size, and no one who is connected with fishing is unable to recognise that the fishing effort should be reduced, but that is proposed at a time when, economically, the industry should be expanding. Plaice quotas affect my port, but all quotas must be caught in full or we shall be in danger of losing ground after 1993. As the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations has pointed out, will increasing mesh size or changing our licensing system achieve the required reductions? It doubts it, and many fishermen in my area doubt it.
I must deal with decommissioning. I must disappoint my hon. Friend the Minister by being in the same camp as other hon. Members. He has not answered this question, but I hope that he will: why should we contribute to other countries' decommissioning schemes through our EEC payments but not to our own? My hon. Friend said that decommissioning is no Holy Grail. Perhaps it is not, but it is a way of reaching that mythical Holy Grail.
The world's best scientific evidence is available. Undoubtedly the biggest worry facing us is fish stocks. I pay tribute to the contribution of the scientists at the MAFF laboratory in Lowestoft, who deservedly have an international reputation. If their work is to be treated seriously, should there not be a serious grasping of the nettle rather than a pruning of the twigs? That is an inappropriate analogy, but I hope that my hon. Friend takes the point. Decommissioning could be that serious grasping of the nettle.
All our fish markets will soon face the rigours of the new EC fish market hygiene regulations. Some will need modest adaptation and others will need major surgery that will fall not far short of total demolition. Grants can be applied for and extra taxpayers' money has been made available, but the fear is that markets in, for example,


Spain need such drastic rebuilding to bring them up to standard that they will absorb most of the money. That will leave areas such as Lowestoft, which was part-modernised to the best standards available only two or three years ago, in the cold. The cold wind of economic reality would be fair enough because Lowestoft is used to that, but that would place it at a disadvantage compared with its competitors.
One of the documents that we are debating says that the enlargement of the EC in 1986 has had particularly important consequences for the common fisheries policy, especially for its structural component, as a result of the size of the sector in Spain and Portugal. Will my hon. Friend spell out clearly the nature and scale of the distortion to the CFP and to fair competition that the probation of Spain and Portugal in the EEC means to the rest of us?
The fishing industry, when prospering, gives a hard-fought and decent living who those to risk life, limb and money to bring wholesome, cheap food to our tables. There are the deep sea men and owners, the inshore fisheries, the merchants, the port owners, the people who work directly and indirectly in the industry, the organisations, the factions, the groupings, the special interests and the individuals—and that is just at Lowestoft. It is vital to take account of as many of those different views as possible. They cannot all attend meetings in Lowestoft when a new issue must be debated, much less meetings in London or in Scotland. It is a big outlay in time and money beyond the means of many whose views on fishing MAFF needs to absorb.
Is it beyond the wit of modern technology, and would it not be cheaper in the long run for all concerned, to install a system of electronic instant two-way communication in the office or home of every interested party or person so that he or she can feel a part of the informed decisions that are taken on behalf of the United Kingdom industry?
Restructuring the regulations should help, but in his visits to the many ports of the United Kingdom, for which I thank him, did not my hon. Friend the Minister learn that fishermen feel that they are so subject to external dangers that other industries do not face that they face a catalogue of problems which I will not risk your anger, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by mentioning? If I were 'to talk about fuel prices that are higher than many can stand, you would rule me out of order. If I were to mention the closeness of industry and Government in other EC countries, which leads to doubt about even-handedness in the enforcement of regulations, you would again rule me out of order. There is an uneasy feeling of resentment about how farmers fare compared with fishermen.
Does my hon. Friend understand that sometimes fishermen of many years' experience say, "Hang it, why not dump all regulations except free fishing for a month, then close the sea and give us a tax break to do something else for the rest of the year?" That feeling is not conducive to a healthy industry.
Will my hon. Friend spell out now, and unequivocally, that the Government want an independent United Kingdom fishing industry, supported and encouraged fairly, regionally and strategically balanced and on a sound economic basis—yes, fair enough—but with both hands free to meet its challenges?

Mr. Calum Macdonald: Before I make my main point, let me pick up three of the points made by other hon. Members.
I was delighted to hear the Minister speak so strongly about the Commission's proposal for 120 mm nets, and I applaud his determination to resist it. The fishing industry's resistance has come not from any spirit of evasion or irresponsibility, but from a recognition of the practical problems that will result.
The Minister mentioned the nephrops fisheries, but not the trials of separator trawls that have been undertaken to solve the problem of the by-catch. I hear that the trials have gone very well. I hope that, if they prove as good as seems likely, the Government will encourage small fishermen to adopt separator trawls, which will bring conservation benefits.
There has been support from both sides of the House for a renewal of the decommissioning scheme. The Minister said that there were practical problems; however, he was probably thinking mostly of financial problems, and the need to ensure that the money was spent in the best possible way and went to the right people. There are other practical problems. If the Government intend to move towards a decommissioning scheme, they should take care that any such scheme tackles the core of the problem—that of the larger trawlers, which are causing the overfishing. We do not want a scheme that ends up sucking the smaller boats out of the industry and leaving the larger ones in place. In the long run, that would not solve the problem of overfishing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said that the Government should seriously consider a system of "coastal zoning" as a means of managing both fisheries and other activities that are now impinging on the coast, such as aquaculture, dredging and mineral and oil extraction. All these things—which conflict with fishing—could be better managed and regulated if a coastal zone system was adopted.
I commend to the Minister and his officials the recent report of the Marine Conservation Society, which proposes a United Kingdom coastal zone management plan and has been endorsed by the World Wide Fund for Nature. We need to explore such possibilities in the future.
Let me now refer more specifically to my own area—although I hope that what I say will be relevant not only to the north-west and the Hebridean fisheries, but to some of the other fisheries in the United Kingdom for instance, in Northern Ireland and the north-east of England—that were mentioned earlier. A proposal submitted to the Government earlier this year suggested that a simple, cheap, effective and easy-to-regulate first step to ensure proper conservation and management in the inshore waters of the north-west of Scotland was the introduction of a weekend ban on fisheries—a total ban from midnight on Friday until midday, or early morning, on Monday. It would ban fisheries of any kind in the inshore waters off the Minches and the west coast of the Hebrides. It would be simple to introduce and police, and is supported by the fishermen of the west coast. However, so far the Government have refused to take note of the proposal, let alone introduce it. That is sad: if the Government are seriously interested in conservation, they should consider it seriously.
The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) talked about the conflicts between the various geographical elements of the British fishing industry. His fishermen in Northern Ireland now face much the same difficulties as mine in the Hebrides—and, I believe, all fishermen on the west coast of Scotland. A state of anarchy is emerging on the west coast, because there is no incentive for the traditional fishing industries to fish in a responsible and sustainable way while there are incursions from the east coast of Scotland. Boats have hit their quota ceilings and are moving to the west coast. As long as that continues, there will be no incentive for fishermen on the west coast to fish in a responsible and sustainable way, as they are capable of doing because of their smaller boats.
A specific example of this process is the newly developed style of long-lining for dogfish and skate in the Hebridean Minches. This example shows that being traditional does not mean that the fishermen do not go into new types of fisheries or use new techniques—they do. Long-lining is an exciting development. There is good demand for those fish, both domestically and on the continent. The fishery can be sustained during the summer and winter months. It can exploit grounds that cannot be exploited by normal means. The fishery has been developed experimentally over the past 24 months by boats from my constituency, from the Hebrides. Because of its great success, it has been taken up by 16 boats in the Western Isles. They have rigged themselves out for long-lining for dogfish and skate.
Now that this fishery has been developed in a bold way by these fishermen, and the Western Isles boats are poised to take advantage of it, what has happened? This year already, four boats which used to fish for white fish, cod and haddock along the east coast have come into these waters. Perhaps I shall make the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) happier by pointing out that those four boats are not from the east coast of Scotland but come from Grimsby. The key issue is not the point of origin but the size of the boats.
These boats have run up against quota problems fishing for white fish in the North sea. They have seen the dogfish and skate long-lining fishery open up on the west coast and have begun to transfer their attentions to it. Their boat size means that, when they transfer their attentions to that area, the whole fishery, which has been carefully and experimentally built up, will come under increasing threat. Each Western Isles boat has between 4,000 and 5,000 hooks. Each east coast boat has 20,000 hooks, which is a four to fivefold increase in fishing power. Next year, we can expect 10 to 20 such boats to come from the east coast.
That fishery will be exploited and plundered completely. Any incentive for the traditional fishermen to develop, sustain and manage a new fishery in a way dictated to by their own interests—because they want the fishery to last a long time—is removed by the way in which other fishing fleets can all too easily transfer their attentions from one region to another under the present regime.
The only thing to save the west coast after this past catastrophic year has been the abysmal failure of the Government's 92-day rule. It is widely accepted that that rule has been flouted everywhere. If it were not flouted, there would be many more boats coming to the west coast from the east coast.

Mr. Kennedy: The hon. Member and I share many representative organisations, just as we share the Minch, the passage of sea between our respective constituencies. It is useful to put on record the seriousness of the difficulty on the west coast, around the Western Isles and the northern isles, this year. Like other hon. Members, the hon. Member and I went to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland to see the then Minister of State, Lord Sanderson. The difficulty led to the formation of a unique umbrella organisation, drawing on all the representative fishing groups, from the Orkneys down to the Firth of Clyde and all points in between. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the fishermen's efforts to try to resolve some of the issues show, if nothing else, the seriousness of the crisis that the industry faces?

Mr. Macdonald: When the industry on the west coast gets together, thrashes out some of its differences and comes forward with proposals such as the weekend ban, it is disappointing that the Government, who were handed on a plate a conservation measure that was cheaply and easily enforced, looked the other way. However, I took encouragement from the Minister's recent meeting with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. I hope that he will also be willing to meet representatives of the West Coast Action Group if a meeting can be set up in the near future.
I want to point out an oddity of the fishing industry, which is not an oddity of any other industry. In almost every other industry, increased efficiency means an increase in the supply of the product, whether it is cars or, in agriculture, sheep or grain. One increases the supply and reduces the cost to the consumer through increased efficiency. The fishing industry, uniquely, is not like that. Efficiency of catching power, if anything, works in reverse. The more efficient the industry is, the more the supply will begin to diminish in the long term as one begins to fish out the stocks. As a result, the price to the consumer shoots up.
I warn the Government against what may lie behind some of the present approaches to the industry, such as licence aggregation and quota aggregation. I have the feeling that the Government hope to achieve an industry with many fewer, but far larger and more efficient, boats. That is not the solution to the problem. Going for efficiency in the fishing industry is not like going for efficiency in agriculture or in any other industry. Efficiency in the fishing industry does not have the beneficial consequences that it has in every other industry. On the contrary, being over-efficient has led us to our present pass.
The supply of fish to be caught is set by nature. No matter how efficient a fishing boat is, it cannot create fish. The real question is whether the finite supply of fish is to be caught by many fewer boats, which are more efficient, but more highly leveraged and which need to earn huge profits to keep themselves and their bankers going, or whether that finite supply should be spread out among many small, less-leveraged boats, which would earn less profit per boat, but would need less profit per boat because there would be fewer loans to pay off. They could earn sufficient to keep not only the fishermen and their families, but whole communities alive, especially on the west coast of Scotland.
It makes no sense to have a system of regulation—or non-regulation—of fisheries that would lead to the destruction of the small fishing communities of the west coast—and especially of the north-west coast—of


Scotland, that would benefit only a small number of eventually profiteering boat owners and their bankers and would not benefit the consumers. Such a system would also place a burden on the taxpayer, because the public purse would eventually have to be used to resurrect the destroyed fishing communities.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I hope that the rather tame motion does not imply any complacency about the crisis that is enveloping the fishing industry. The noble Lord Strathclyde, whose name the Minister was able to remember so well, said of the fishing industry in a newspaper article in Scotland on Sunday on 4 November:
I wouldn't have said it's in one of its most critical periods.
I hope that, given what the Minister has heard tonight from both sides of the House, and given the prospects not only of immediate negotiations in the European Community but of even lower quotas and total allowable catches for next year, he will in no way share the complacent "Crisis—what crisis?" view of the Scottish Minister responsible for fisheries. I know that the Scottish Minister has been in the job for only a few weeks, but his early findings and soundings in the industry should have removed from him any sense that the industry is making do or that anything less than major changes of policy will be enough to meet the crisis that is enveloping the industry.
The sense of complacency probably stems from the fact that, although the quantity of landings this year has substantially decreased, prices have increased. The Government may therefore feel that things are not as bad as all that. I do not think that the Scottish Minister would take that view if he were a fish processing worker in my constituency earning about £100 a week and with no wage increase at all last year because the problems have been passed on to the processing sector through high prices.
We should not underrate the problem of increased costs in the fishing fleet. Penal interest rates have cost the Scottish fishing industry alone perhaps £10 million. Imagine the sense of fury that fishermen must have felt as they sailed past oil platforms in the past few weeks, given that they face a doubling of their fuel costs. In some cases, half the revenue from a fishing trip now goes in increased fuel costs, yet the fishermen have to steam past platforms run by companies that are exploiting the wealth of the North sea, where development costs have not increased during the past few months. The industry is facing increased costs to which it is exceptionally vulnerable. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the somewhat complacent views of his counterpart at the Scottish Office in no way reflect the overall policy of the Government.
I want to speak both about technical conservation and about the structural support measures proposed for the industry. I have a reasonably substantial record of advocating technical conservation. In the Scottish Grand Committee last July, I made a long speech—perhaps too long—in which I dwelt for some time on the technical conservation measures that would be necessary and explained why I thought that they represented a far better bet for the future stability of the industry than a total reliance on ever-lower quota allocations. But the technical measures must be the correct measures.
I have four specific questions for the Minister and I hope that I shall get favourable answers to all of them. First, does he accept—from his opening speech, it would

appear that he does—that the 120 mm mesh would virtually wipe out the prospect of a mixed fishery in the North sea? Does he accept the view of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation that there would be a 50 per cent. decline in the haddock catch and that the whiting catch would all but disappear?
Secondly, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the shape and design of fishing gear are at least as important as mesh size—if not more so? On that, I should correct the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who seems to be suffering from the delusion that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation is arguing for the status quo. The Minister will be well aware that that is not correct. For the past two years, the federation has argued consistently for a series of technical changes to fishing gear, which should have the effect of increasing the number of small fish that escape into the sea not just alive but in good condition.
There is now substantial scientific evidence to support the technical changes that the federation has been advocating for some time. I refer to the proposals for square mesh panels, not ballooning at the codend, and the one-net rule. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the Scottish Fisherman's Federation has been arguing for those things for some time and that the scientific evidence shows that, at least for whiting and haddock, innovations like the square mesh panel above the codend will have a substantial effect in increasing the escape of immature fish.
Thirdly, I want confirmation that the Minister accepts that an official 90 mm directed fishery for whiting would substantially increase discards of cod and haddock.
Finally, the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said that there was at least a suspicion that the basis of that argument is coming from interests that favour the expansion of the industrial fishery in the North sea.
The Minister has heard from both sides of the House today that the general feeling is that the industrial fishery should be an immediate target, if not for closure, then for severe restriction. When fish for human consumption are so scarce, it is untenable to continue to extract 1 million tonnes of pout and sand eels—the feed stock and the food source—from the North sea annually, when the haddock fishery for human consumption is down to less than 40,000 tonnes. It is obscene to have the industrial fishery running at current levels. I repeat the earlier call for the Minister to show determination and ensure that that aspect will be put firmly on the agenda of the Council meeting and that there will be a specific debate on how the industrial fishery can be controlled.
I want now to consider structural support. I hope that hon. Members from various parties will support the call by Winnie Ewing, the MEP for the Highlands and Islands, when she moves in the European Parliament next week to have the north-east of Scotland added to the list of areas entitled to special structural support from the European Community. No area in the country is more dependent on fishing than the north-east of Scotland.
I compiled some figures today to give the Minister an idea of the disadvantage from which the fishing industry in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom is suffering as a result of the Government's intransigence in terms of the take-up of decommissioning and lay-up schemes. The figures come from the joint seminar on fisheries held by the Commission and the European Parliament in France last week. Knowing the Conservative party's current interest


in the hard ecu, I will express the figures in ecu. Over the past three years, the figures for lay-up subsidies to other European fleets are as follows: 50 million ecu in 1987; 30 million ecu in 1988; and 6 million ecu in 1989. The vast bulk of the funds for lay-up premiums have gone to the Spanish fishing industry.
The figures for decommissioning are as follows: 37 million ecu in 1987; 49 million ecu in 1988; and 45 million ecu in 1989. The vast bulk of those funds went to the Danish fishing industry. In sterling, the total over those three years is £115 million. The Scottish and United Kingdom share of those fisheries funds is zero as a result of the Government's hard-line determination not even to spend other people's money on fisheries, because the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made such a cod of attempting to introduce a decommissioning scheme eight years ago.
When decommissioning schemes are being pursued successfully elsewhere in Europe, it is not sustainable to pursue the argument that such schemes could not be carried out efficiently, productively and cost-effectively in the Community. The United Kingdom's share of the total sum for all structural support for fisheries, including modernisation and new build, over the past four years was 7 per cent. in 1987; 3 per cent. in 1988; 3·6 per cent. in 1989; and only 1 per cent. so far this year. How on earth can the fishing industry, in the tough competitive environment of the European Community, hope to compete with fleets as powerful as the Spanish and Danish fleets if vast sums of money are going to support the structural improvement of fishing in those countries and no funds are supporting the same structural improvements for the fishing industry in this country?
Earlier in the debate, the Minister was speculating on what Luxembourg's policy on fishing might be. We shall have to leave that as an open question, but there should be no doubt that there is a Luxembourg veto over fishery matters. The Prime Minister is in no doubt on these matters, although I do not know the views of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). No doubt we shall hear them expounded over the next few days. Perhaps even as I speak the right hon. Member is, in Paisley, speculating on the use of the Luxembourg veto.
The Minister has made it clear that he is opposed to the 120 mm mesh size, and that his agenda on technical conservation changes is different from that being put forward by Mr. Marin. Does he believe that the Luxembourg national interest veto is available on fisheries matters? If the bit comes to the bit, is the Department prepared to use such a veto to defend what is seen in Scotland, however it is seen elsewhere, as of vital national interest?

Mr. Curry: With the leave of the House. For the most part, the debate has been conducted with a great deal of understanding and many points have been sensitively put. I hope that I can sum up in the same spirit. As the hon. Members for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) and for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) said, I try to keep my door open. That policy will continue. Whenever someone has a sensible argument to put to me, I shall listen to it. I have done that in the past and I shall continue to

do so. I was generous in giving way to interventions when I opened the debate, but I shall try to be quicker in winding up. I hope that the House understands that.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) supported the general thrust of what we are saying about technical conservation. I am grateful to him and to all those hon. Members who repeated those points. My introductory remarks were clear about that and included the famous four points mentioned by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). There is no equivocation. Our position on these matters is clear.
Every hon. Member who has spoken has mentioned decommissioning. I should make it clear beyond all doubt that, as I have said before, the problem with decommissioning is not that we could not devise a scheme for it if we wished to go down that road. The criticisms levelled against the previous scheme were, as hon. Members have said, about the mechanics of it. The problem is that we still remain to be convinced that that would be a proper and good use of money.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) spoke about a targeted scheme. It is true that we could have met many of the points made by the Public Accounts Committee, but if we want to target inefficient vessels and catch few fish, how do we get value for money? If we target efficient vessels which catch lots of fish, would we be aiming for a less efficient fleet? That dilemma must be faced and sorted out. There is no easy answer to decommissioning. We have put forward various proposals. There has been movement in capacity aggregations and we are still looking at other proposals. As I have said, when people make sensible arguments, I will listen to them.
Like several other hon. Members, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) mentioned allegations of Scottish fishing activities in other waters. I said then that we have proposals on producer organisation management which we hope will address that problem. We are inviting comments on whether the track records for next year should omit those catches which appear to be abnormal, for whatever reason. We have had mixed reactions from the fishing industry, but we are exploring that possibility.
We have managed to do something about cod in the Irish sea. As for prosecutions, there is the general problem of rules of evidence. I am talking about Scotland. With the best will in the world, difficulties have to be overcome. When I was in Aberdeen this morning, Scottish fishermen said that they felt that they were the subject of intense scrutiny and a surveillance operation. They felt that they were not getting away with murder or even with slight scratches.

Mr. Morley: The Minister has referred directly to the problem of enforcement. Does he agree that there is no point in having good conservation measures if there is not adequate enforcement? We are all aware of the pressures which are driving fishermen, but there must be proper enforement.
I accept much of what the Minister has said about decommissioning, but will he agree that we are still not progressing in reducing our fleet? That is the key factor. The problem can be resolved only by a decommissioning scheme.

Mr. Curry: I take issue with the hon. Gentleman on whether only a decommissioning scheme can do that.


There are other measures. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about surveillance but add the rider that it is the nature of the industry that, if individuals want to cheat, it is not in the power of man to stop them, short of having an inspector on every boat 24 hours a day and inspectors at every port. We do not want that sort of regulation. That is why I want the techical measures that we are discussing to be acceptable to the industry so that those who work within it feel that the measures are in their interests and that we are not working against them

Mr. Keith Mans: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Curry: I shall, but I will not make a habit of doing so.

Mr. Mans: I am pleased by what my hon. Friend has said about not using the track record of the last year. He will know that Fleetwood has suffered heavily in area VIIa as a result off the exploits of Scottish fishermen. Is it not possible to increase surveillance and move a little further towards the possibility of having more inspectors on boats, especially in areas where there has been misreporting in the past?

Mr. Curry: We shall do our best to ensure that there is an efficient enforcement effort. We shall explore the possibility of bringing certain technology to bear to help us with the tracking of boats. We shall do all we can.

Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Curry: This is the last time I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Salmond: When the Minister is considering track records, will he consider also the substantial payments of the Scottish industry? Will he accept that the track records extend too far back historically and do not permit a reasonable interpretation of current fishing perfomance and current catching power?

Mr. Curry: All matters that are urged upon us by the industry are bound to be taken into consideration when we are examining track records; otherwise, we would riot have a consultation process in the first place.

Mr. Salmond: What does that mean?

Mr. Curry: Whatever the hon. Gentleman makes of it. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) asked me about Gibraltar. He will know that Gibraltar is not in the Community, nor is it within the United Kingdom. Therefore, it does not apply. As we understand it, commercial fishery from Gibraltar is extremely small. The two Spanish territories to which the right hon. Gentleman referred have special status under the Spanish accession treaty and therefore fall——

Mr. John D. Taylor: Gibraltar is within the European Community. It was in it long before Spain.

Mr. Curry: Not in the terms in which we have been conducting the debate.
The right hon. Member for Strangford said that we yielded to the Isle of Man. I take issue with him on that score. We yielded nothing to the Isle of Man. We have clear safeguards about the rights of our fishermen in Isle of Man waters. We discuss them on many occasions.
Perhaps I might point out to the right hon. Member for Strangford that there is not an English Fisheries Minister.

I am the Minister responsible for United Kingdom fisheries. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is in overall charge of United Kingdom fisheries policy. I do not see it as my responsibility to protect the English fleet. I see it as my job to be responsible for the needs of the United Kingdom fleet. There is always a Northern Ireland member of the United Kingdom delegation. That applies to agriculture as well as fisheries. The support of the Northern Ireland representative is always extremely valuable to us.
I was grateful for the constructive remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough. I recently had the pleasure of opening a new fish dock with him in Scarborough. I am only happy that it did not happen when all the lights went off.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) asked me about the Hague preference. I understand that people in Grimsby and ports south of it feel anxiety about it, but how does one define northern Britain? At some stage one must define it. The quantities of fish are small. If we dilute the arrangements right through the coast, we shall end up not giving a quantity that is worth while.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Curry: No. I have not completed my remarks. When I intervened in the hon. Member's speech I told him that I had made it clear that, should the Hague preference extend to species other than haddock and to greater quantities of haddock than in the past, we should have to reconsider the mechanism for redistribution. I reaffirm that.
As other hon. Members have said, compared with other ports Grimsby is a distant-water cod fishery and cod can take a 120 mm net. It is a different fishery, and that accounts for the difference. I intervened to mention the quota-hopping case. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with that.
I note the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) made. He mentioned the twin-trawl ban on the prawn stocks. Again, we are faced with the dilemma of whether we want to take a measure which would effectively ban any method of fishing. It is not simple. We constantly keep the matter under review. I am aware that, in other areas, it has been decided to go for a ban on twin trawls. However, at the heart of fisheries policy, we must decide whether our objective is to make the fishing industry less efficient by making people fish less efficiently, so that more people can participate and remain, in the industry, or to move towards a more efficient industry, however that is defined and whatever limits we place on that evolution. Clearly, limits might have to be placed on that evolution.

Mr. Trotter: Is not the local fishing community the best judge of how to preserve its livelihood for the future by preserving stocks?

Mr. Curry: A balance must be struck between the judgment of the local fishing community and the implications for other fishing communities and overall fisheries management. Nothing can be decided purely on a local basis. Of course, we pay particular attention to the needs of communities, especially where the industry is highly localised.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) had a great deal of fun. There is no difference of


policy between DAFS and MAFF. We co-operate closely and our officials co-operate closely. When we send delegations to Brussels, we are represented at an official level by teams from both Departments. The officials interchange their work and contribute to each other's work. The hon. Gentleman may suggest otherwise as much as he wants, but we are indivisible in our policy and we intend to keep it that way.
On Norwegian dumping, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman if he will allow me. That is not because I do not wish to reply now, but because the procedures are complicated. It is somewhat like the Schleswig-Holstein question, and I have forgotten some of the details. Therefore, I should like to give the hon. Gentleman a full account of what must be followed and the stage that we have reached in the proposals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter), whose constituency includes the principal port of Lowestoft, which I shall visit on Monday, asked about the role of Spain and Portugal. Our commitment to the notion of relative stability remains. We have not compromised that commitment. He also mentioned representation on the Sea Fish Industry Authority. The problem is that, by statute, it consists of 12 people. Also by statute, four must be independent. That leaves eight people to represent catchers, merchants, processors and the whole of the diverse industry. With the best will in the world, we cannot represent every geographical interest. I note what my hon. Friend said about East Anglia. If we find an occasion on which I can give satisfaction, of course, I shall seek to do so.
The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) made a thoughtful and sensible speech.[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, the hon. Gentleman makes thoughtful and sensible speeches. I hope that my saying that will not do him too much damage in his constituency. I note what he said about coastal zoning. If he wishes to discuss it with me I shall be happy to do so. He said that his west coast small fishermen would like to talk to me. Clearly, the prime responsibility lies with my noble Friend Lord Strathclyde. However, if those fishermen think that it would be useful to see me also, I shall of course make myself available for such a meeting.
I have always understood the hon. Gentleman's concern about small communities, which he has expressed in all these debates in which he has participated. It is not my intention that we end up with only three large boats coming from a single port. The thrust of the provisions is not that; it is to enable the fishing communities to make a living.
I shall not respond to the attacks made upon my noble Friend by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). Those comments were the only point at which a note of sourness was introduced into the debate. Those comments were unnecessary—all the more so because they are wholly untrue. However, the hon. Gentleman asked me four specific questions, to which the answers are yes, yes, yes and, "It depends what you mean."

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: What does that mean?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Lady has only just appeared in the Chamber. I gave a detailed response in my introductory remarks, before the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan had asked the question.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: rose——

Mr. Curry: No, the hon. Gentleman has been peripatetic in the Chamber and I shall not give way to him. If Opposition Members read my introductory remarks in Hansard, they will find that they are perfectly clear——

Mr. Welsh: I appreciate the Minister giving way. My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) asked a straightforward question: does the Minister have the power of veto at that meeting? If the Scottish fishing industry is threatened, as is obviously the case, will he be prepared to use that veto?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman asked me four questions. He asked me about the 120 mm net, and I said that that was not on. He asked me about the shape and design of the nets, and I said that I agreed with him. He asked me about the role of whiting, and I said that I agreed with him. He asked me about the industrial fisheries, and I said that I did not necessarily associate myself with the motive behind the proposals, but that I agreed with the burden of his remarks and that we are not in the business of encouraging industrial fisheries.
The fisheries sector has never found it necessary to employ a veto. We settle these things in the Council by means of majority voting and we work towards building those majorities. Invoking the Luxembourg compromise should be reserved for issues of grave national importance. If any such matter arose, we should have to consider whether we thought that it was a matter of national importance of an order that would justify the use of a veto. I suspect that such a decision would be taken at a level other than that of the Ministers representing the United Kingdom in that Council. We go to the Councils equipped to negotiate. We do not intend to turn the Council into a telephone exchange, because that is not a very good way of going forward.
I have attempted to summarise the debate. There has been a wide consensus. The way forward for our fisheries is to introduce sensible and practical measures for conservation, which will command the consent of our fishermen so that we can start the ball rolling and move towards measures which produce an ever-increasing conservation yield, if I may use that expression. These proposals form a starting point. They go to extremes, but we can build down from them to achieve a sensible beginning.
Our fishing debates tend to invoke a large measure of consensus about our concern for the industry—a concern that is reflected in this Minister. Several hon. Members have been kind enough to acknowledge that I have the industry's concerns at heart. I am anxious that that is seen to be the case, and I invite the House to support the proposals.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 69, Noes 10.

Division No. 4]
[9.43 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Atkinson, David


Arbuthnot, James
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Boswell, Tim






Bowis, John
Knowles, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Lawrence, Ivan


Burt, Alistair
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Cash, William
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Mans, Keith


Conway, Derek
Miller, Sir Hal


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Curry, David
Mudd, David


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Neale, Gerrard


Dykes, Hugh
Neubert, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Fookes, Dame Janet
Paice, James


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Patnick, Irvine


Fox, Sir Marcus
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gale, Roger
Raffan, Keith


Gill, Christopher
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Goodlad, Alastair
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Hague, William
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Trotter, Neville


Harris, David
Waller, Gary


Holt, Richard
Wheeler, Sir John


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Widdecombe, Ann


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wilshire, David


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Hunter, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas


Jack, Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Janman, Tim



King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kirkhope, Timothy
Mr. Nicholas Baker and


Knapman, Roger
Mr. Timothy Wood.


Knight, Greg (Derby North)



NOES


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Spearing, Nigel


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Kennedy, Charles
Wallace, James


Maclennan, Robert



Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Tellers for the Noes:


Salmond, Alex
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Andrew Welsh.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8317/90 on technical measures for the conservation of fishing resources and 8240/90 on measures to improve and adapt structures in the fisheries and aquaculture sector; and supports the Government's view that changes in existing technical conservation measures are needed to improve the conservation of fish stocks and that these should achieve a balance between conservation and maintaining a viable fishing industry, the Government's recognition of the need to match Community fishing capacity with available fisheries resources, and the principle of strengthening the structural measures to reduce fleet size, provided that such measures can offer value for money.

Romania (Mentally Handicapped Children)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Miss Emma Nicholson: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for granting me this Adjournment debate which I am glad and honoured to share with the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) because this is an all-party debate and it is proper that he should share it with me.
I draw the attention of the House to the tragic plight of mentally handicapped children in Romania. In so doing, I believe that I shall paint a harrowing picture. The picture that I intend to paint is not the whole of the picture in Romania, but it is a symbol. It is perhaps the starkest and most extreme case of the immorality of communist policies and the evils that they created, even in the treatment of innocent children.
Before I became a Member of Parliament, I worked for the Save the Children Fund. The efforts of the Austrian Save the Children Fund led to the creation of a children's home in Romania called, most barely, home No. 6. I visited Romania as a member of an all-party delegation. We examined the plight of religious minorities, in particular the plight of the Jewish minority. While I was there I visited some of the hospitals and homes in which children were living. Pictures of the conditions in which they were living had been shown to devastating effect on Western television. I visited Romania, and other eastern European countries, last August, during the recess.
The conditions in home number six were so appalling that I feel that it is right and proper to draw the attention of the House to them. I understand that under the previous regime it was wrong to be mentally handicapped and that it was wrong also to have children who were mentally handicapped. It is not so long since this country regarded mental handicap almost as a disease. It is not surprising, therefore, that mental handicap was frowned on in a dictatorship where only the fit could flourish and where so much bribery and corruption was built into the system. It is for that reason that those children can truly be called forgotten children.
I do not speak now of the AIDS babies, of whose plight we know so well from the pictures on our television screens, or of the large orphanages that have recently featured in the press. These institutions are for delightful children, aged between seven and 14. Those children are there because they are mentally handicapped. Nevertheless, their handicap is only mild; it is of the order of an IQ of about 75, or a little lower. There is a boy in my constituency with an IQ of 70 who, in the wake of the Warnock report, is in mainstream education. Conditions in Romania bear no similarity whatsoever to the happy village school in Winkleigh where that boy is being educated. Conditions are far closer to those in Dartmoor prison, except that Dartmoor prison would be preferable.
I saw children whose heads had been shaved because of lice. There were open sores on their arms. There were six or seven staff for about 400 boys. The staff were worn out and they were pessimistic about what they could do for the children. The dormitories were filled with stench on account of filthy, squalid mattresses. There was no running


water. For about 40 boys there were a couple of taps. There were no main sewers and there was little electricity. The ceilings were black with swarms of mosquitoes. Most of the windows, covered with mesh, were broken because the boys played outside on the only playing field that they had, which was covered with concrete.
It was an extraordinarily miserable sight. In all my years with the Save the Children Fund I cannot recall seeing anything in the west to compare with it. I have seen plenty of comparable sites in the poorest parts of the world such as Africa, India or even South America. The shock of finding such sites in the wider world of Europe is what determined myself and other members of our delegation, particularly the hon. Member for Dumbarton, to do something.
Of course, we wondered what to do. Our next visit happened to be to the President. We asked his advice and I asked him whether he would be patron if we were to run an appeal. He readily agreed. We went on to see the Prime Minister and put the same point to him. He showed us the new committee that he had already set up. It was excellent. He also showed us the potential child care legislation which, in our eyes, was not so good. However, he has a soft spot for children and he said that he would be our vice-patron.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Miss Nicholson: We went on to seek the guidance and support of leading members of the religious organisations in Romania. We asked the patriarch, the cardinal archbishop, the leader of the free churches, the chief rabbi, business men and other good people. We have formed an embryo committee in Romania which is willing to help in any way it can. We still have the help of the Austrian Save the Children Fund and, since we returned, we have been offered help by many of the small British organisations that have links with the Romanian community and are anxious to do all that they can. In addition, we must not forget the strong, although small, Romanian community in the United Kingdom. The Romanian community in Reading has been broadcasting in Romanian to Romania on the BBC world service for the past 20 years. That may well have been instrumental in the crucial revolution.
The purpose of our work is to effect change, to introduce good child care laws and practice and to start the ball rolling on training. There has been no training of special experts such as teachers since 1978. I understand that the last psychiatrist in Romania was trained in 1972. Under the old regime everybody was supposed to be entirely mentally healthy. We will pursue longer-term plans with organisations such as CARITAS—the Catholic agency for international relief. It is an agency of great size and integrity. It has a plan to break up the institutions. As I have said, there are 200 of them and the largest houses 700 boys.
I shall now deal with what I hope will be a short-term effort because I hope that the CARITAS plan, the Prime Minister's plan or others like it will take effect quickly. I want to define it as short-term aid from Westminster. We are forming an all-party group for mentally handicapped children in Romania. That group will run the first ever

all-party appeal—the parliamentary all-party appeal for Romanian children. We plan to launch our appeal on 3 December.
I offer my thanks to you, Mr. Speaker, for generously lending us your patronage and to the Lord Chancellor who has followed your lead. We have a long list of eminent Back-Bench names from both sides of the House who are flocking to join us. I believe that our eminent supporters in the outer world will include Bishop Carey and the other religious leaders. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton has written to the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, and I am sure that the other religious leaders will come forward, too.
This is the simplest of appeals—a Christmas appeal. Our aim is to obtain money for presents for the children which will be delivered on our behalf by the Austrian Save the Children Fund, which visits them regularly. Longer term in Romania, the charitable efforts could be devoted to creating local leagues of friends or perhaps sending United Kingdom volunteer experts overseas. I pay warm tribute to the many people in the United Kingdom who have already given generously of their money, time and skills.
Our parliamentary group will concentrate on building up good relationships with our colleagues in the Romanian Government and on their Back Benches to bring about the best possible legislation for children and to see that it is put into practice nationally.
What are we asking our Government to do? I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that there is an overwhelming case for continuing humanitarian aid, for considering use of a know-how fund, for medical and teaching experts from the United Kingdom and for easement of visa payments and time delays for similar Romanian experts. After all, we seek the backing of the Government for our own initiative to put these children high on the political agenda, so that the rights of the Romanian child are never violated again.
I spoke earlier of the evils of communism, as displayed by the horror and tragedy of these lovely children. As parliamentarians, we pride ourselves on being omnipotent and omnicompetent, yet we cannot expect to solve all Romania's problems. We can and should, as the mother of Parliaments, be firmly associated with the relief of suffering. We shall be in touch with all our colleagues and we seek the sympathy, forbearance and understanding of this place.

Mr. John McFall: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this Adjournment debate. As the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) said, this appeal stems directly from a visit of the all-party group on eastern European Jewry to Romania. My hon. and learned Friend the member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) and the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) participated in our visit to children's home No. 6, which is a home for seven to 16-year-old boys. There are 400 boys in the home, 370 of whom are termed socially abandoned.
The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West has more international experience than me, but as a former schoolteacher I was horrified by the sight that greeted us


in home No. 6. It was almost a three-dimensional step into a world that I did not believe existed, except in a celluloid representation of Auschwitz and Belsen.
The children whom we met were dressed in dark blue uniforms. Some of them had their heads shaved and others had full heads of hair. Those who had their heads shaved were more energetic, more kinetic, in their appearance. The only conclusion that I could draw was that those children had had their heads shaved for one reason—that if they escaped from the home, if they penetrated its barriers, they would be easily identifiable by the community at large and could be returned to the home. It was as barbaric as that.
In one dormitory, there were more than 40 beds for enuretic children. They were huddled together and had no blankets. The stench of urine that met us was overpowering. The care workers—I would call them warders—were graduates of the school. They were two or three years older than the children and had keys on their belts. The doors were locked at night and the children were left to care for themselves. Given the corporate denial of human rights, it was not surprising that there were marks on their heads.
As a result of that experience, we put our points to the President and to the Prime Minister. I know that the political situation in Romania is unstable, but they are taking the children out of the wilderness, out of the darkness, and into the 1990s. Children have been part of the darkness in Romania because Ceausescu decreed a healthy society. Therefore, there was no need for child care specialists or for child care policy; everyone was healthy. Therefore, the children were completely abandoned.
There is a high degree of mental handicap in Romania, but, from the contacts that I have had with the medical and social experts who have been there, I understand that that is because the children have been given no environmental stimuli. One group of psychologists from Ireland who visited Romania said before they went that they thought that it would be hard to make proper assessments of the children's intellectual potential. However, after their visit they said that they could not make any assessment of the general level of retardation by western standards, simply because of the lack of environmental stimulation. There were no children in Britain with whom to compare them.
It has been said that a society can be judged by the way in which it treats its children. If we judged Romania on that basis, it would have no future. However, it does have a future: it is in a changing political position with an embryonic political democracy, and it needs western assistance, both material and professional. It was that realisation on our part that set us to work on the idea of a parliamentary appeal for Romanian children. By establishing the group, and by obtaining your support, Mr. Speaker—we are all very grateful to you for giving your time—we will send a message to Romania saying, "No, you are not forgotten: there is a future for you, and we are ready to help."
Just as the political position in Romania is embryonic, so are hopes. We have no master plan for action in Romania, but it is worth setting up a group at the highest level to say that we—at the highest level—will do something. We are not acting merely on the one-off basis of a Christmas appeal for home No. 6; we intend to act on a continuing basis to help to establish political democracy in Romania.
In Bucharest, I was fortunate enough to speak to Church leaders. I spoke to Rabbi Rosen, the Chief Rabbi of Bucharest; I also had an audience with the patriarch of Romania and Archbishop Ion Robu, the Catholic Archbishop of Romania. From all three came the message that they could not do it on their own; they needed outside help and assistance.
As Archbishop Ion Robu So graphically said, those Romanian children are deprived because they have no love. No one has ever put their arms around them; no one has fondled them; they have never been told that they are loved. That is what is missing. We must put some light into that society with our deeds in this country, and we can do that only by having a link with Romania involving church leaders, community leaders and politicians. The politicians must be subject to scrutiny from the church leaders, and from British volunteers.
I hope that we can prosper in our work at parliamentary level; my experience so far suggests that people have greeted the intiative with a good deal of enthusiasm. I am sure that, with your assistance, Mr. Speaker—and that of the Government—we shall be able to do something for the children, and for Romania as a whole.
With my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), I hope to become involved with church leaders in Scotland, and to highlight the plight of children's home No. 6. My hon. Friend has also been working with the Comber Romanian orphanage appeal of Ireland. That appeal has already exceeded 50 per cent. of its target of £500,000. It is working in conjunction with the Jubilee campaign in England. That group has been in Romania for a number of years, and since the December revolution has refurbished four orphanages. It has sent specialist volunteer forces, using material bought in Britain.
It has not given the Romanian Government money. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South agrees that we do not want money to be given to the Romanian Government because one cannot guarantee how it will be spent. We need to have monitoring in Romania by people from Britain. I stress that money raised here will not be handed over to the Romanian Government but will be used, where we can, as approved by Church leaders in Bucharest and the president, to obviate suffering in a direct way in accordance with our priorities.
This Adjournment debate is but the first step. I am delighted that you, Mr. Speaker, have given us the opportunity to raise this subject. Let us hope that it is the first of many steps whereby we can do something with the many good people of Romania.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): This debate has been filled with tragedy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) and the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) for bringing this important subject before the House.
I know that my hon. Friend has a long-standing interest in the welfare of children, and she knows that I am aware of her work in the Save the Children Fund. All the activities reported to me have shown that anything to


which she sets her mind is carried out with the greatest possible zeal. I am sure that the same can be said of the hon. Member for Dumbarton. I wish them both the very best of success in the appeal which they have set up for this worthy cause. I hope that the appeal will thrive and grow. I hope that my hon. Friend's contribution to the welfare of these children will be recognised in years to come.
Hon. Members described the appalling conditions in some schools in Romania. I, too, saw some of those reports on television. No one who observed them can fail to be moved by those pictures. The plight of so many abandoned children is certainly one of the most dreadful and unforeseen legacies of the Ceausescu dictatorship.
After the revolution in Romania, Her Majesty's Government moved immediately to provide substantial amounts of humanitarian aid, much of it to improve standards of care for mentally handicapped children. We provided £500,000 for the World Health Organisation's programme of aid to the Romanian health service. Following the shocking revelations about the large numbers of Romanian children diagnosed as HIV positive, we donated I million disposable syringes and we have since supplied £75,000-worth of AIDS diagnostic equipment. We have also encouraged longer-term projects, such as a family planning programme organised by Marie Stopes International. The total value of the humanitarian assistance which we have given, both directly through the European Community and through other international organisations such as the World Health Organisation, now stands at over £6·6 million. That must be a sign of the Government's commitment and concern.
None of us should forget the immense generosity of the British people in response to the situation and especially the efforts of all those who are involved in private initiatives to help Romanian children. We have, of course, taken care to ensure that our aid reaches those who need it most. For that reason, we have made contributions to British charities working in Romania. Some have many years' experience of caring for the mentally handicapped. I cannot mention them all tonight, but prominent among them is Mencap, which has been working to improve conditions in the Brincanovesti castle institution and is deeply concerned with education of mentally handicapped children. Our contributions to charities have enabled British doctors and nurses to work in Romania and have provided training in this country for Romanians responsible for the care of mentally handicapped children. We welcome this exchange of expertise and support any initiatives designed to broaden and consolidate contacts between British specialists and their Romanian counterparts.
I agree that the valuable work which is under way to provide assistance to the children of Romania should not be hindered unnecessarily by bureaucracy. However, hon. Members will understand that we are not yet ready to abolish visas for Romanian citizens, although we are, of course, willing to do all that we can to ease the way for Romanian experts to visit the United Kingdom.
I hope, too, that the Romanian authorities concerned will help facilitate the work of British specialists in their country. In that connection, the Government warmly welcome the Romanian ambassador's interest in the

question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West. The Romanian embassy in London has been immensely helpful already in arranging visas for a group of Department of Health and Home Office officials who will be visiting Romania later this month to discuss with their counterparts our countries' positions on inter-country adoption. We shall pursue further with the appropriate Romanian authorities ways of cutting through red tape.
Turning now to international efforts to help Romania, I should like to draw the House's attention to the imaginative programme of Community aid drawn up in July by the EC Commission. The programme has been drawn up with the active involvement of European non-governmental organisations, including the Save the Children Fund, and aims to provide help directly to children's homes in Romania—in answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Dumbarton. We are contributing generously to this programme.
In July, the Commission immediately provided £100,000-worth of aid supplies and sponsored a study to assess the medical and sanitary needs of physically and mentally handicapped children. This made a number of specific recommendations on which the Commission is acting. A special representative has been appointed to work with the Romanian Ministry of Health and to help co-ordinate the efforts of non-governmental organisations and European Community member states. Some £140,000 has been set aside to provide experts and to assist in the management of institutions for mentally and physically handicapped children, and a further £1·9 million has been donated to non-governmental organisations working in Romania. In addition, the Community is setting aside £2·7 million for improved heating and sanitation for 17 orphanages. Aid worth a further £5·25 million has been earmarked for early 1991, and a Romanian request for an additional £4·6 million for the purchase of foodstuffs is currently under consideration.
We wholeheartedly welcome that initiative, which will build on the good work that has already been done by the organisations that have provided emergency relief. We shall continue to work closely with our partners in the EC, as that has proved the most efficient means of co-ordinating humanitarian aid to Romania. Furthermore, I shall ensure that the problem of children in state educational institutions is brought to the attention of the Commission and I hope that that will provide a further basis for future co-operation.
The only solution to Romania's long-term problems, including proper provision for its children, is through good government and a sound economy. As my hon. Friend is aware, this Government have made it clear that we will consider extending the know-how fund to Romania once democratic and free market reforms have been introduced in that country.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Emese Gabor is the one mentally handicapped child I know of who has been adopted in this country, and a parliamentary answer on 22 October confirmed that. The Minister mentioned Mencap, which has been assisting in connection with that adoption. The director of Brincanovesti, Dr. Delast, was in this country with the support of Bristol Mencap and visited Bev and Ruth Smith in Killamarsh in my constituency. Bev Smith had to go


four times to Romania to arrange Emese's adoption. Tomorrow I shall send a copy ofHansard to my constituents, who have great expertise in these matters.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. I invite him also to send his constituents a copy of our earlier Adjournment debate on the subject, to which my hon. Friend the Minister of Health replied.
As I was saying, we shall consider extending the know-how fund. Similarly, in the interests of encouraging good government, we have pressed for strict conditionality in the granting of technical co-operation and other developmental assistance and aid by the G24 nations. The strict conditionality does not apply to humanitarian aid, but the policy that we have enunciated for the other forms of aid is shared by many other western countries. It is intended to encourage the Romanian leadership to follow the path of political and economic liberalisation, and there are already some encouraging signs that it it beginning to have some effect.
The effects of the Ceausescu regime's appalling policies will take many years to erase from Romania. In the shorter term, the humanitarian aid supplied by this and other western countries, and the tremendous effort of so many groups and individuals, will help to relieve the sufferings of the most vulnerable of the dictatorship's victims. My hon. Friend's initiative is particularly welcome as it envisages not only immediate assistance but a programme of education and training which will be of lasting benefit and will enable the children concerned to live fuller lives and perhaps even to contribute to the rebuilding of their country. Most of all, it is to be hoped that the political will exists in Romania to enable the necessary reforms to establish democracy and economic freedom which are the best guarantees for the country's future.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.